Chula said,

May 7, 2010 @ 8:03 am

First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it. Kamma in the Buddha’s Dhamma is intention (or cetanā), and the result of kamma can be seen here and now. If you put your finger in the fire, it burns. That’s kamma in action. If you have an angry thought, it affects your breathing and body. That’s kamma.

Now since the poster seems to focus exclusively on kamma and rebirth (not reincarnation btw – which presupposes a soul that transmigrates), this the Buddha teaches can be directly experienced by meditation practice – specifically through entering the fourth jhāna and inclining your mind towards the knowledge. Of course, if you want some kind of mathematical equation proving rebirth, you’re missing the whole point. The Buddha’s teaching is about experiences that are directly realizable through practice – he just shows what the practice is. This is like criticizing Einstein that his theory of relativity makes no sense by a guy who has no understanding of physics.

You are asking for proof through the scientific method which fails to give you conclusive answers in this regard. Science is no closer to knowing whether there is life after death than anytime before. There is however, good para-psychological research done on claims of rebirth, with very good evidence. A great example is the research done by Ian Stevenson – I recommend his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Even avowed western atheists such as Sam Harris considers this research warranting more interest.

But does this prove rebirth? Of course not. There is no scientific method to prove rebirth. Instead of concluding that therefore this must be untrue, the logical conclusion is to consider it a possible hypothesis with good historical evidence (based on the above). This is completely different from Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), where blind faith on a creator entity and eternal life have no evidence whatsoever.

Also, the although I’d disagree that Buddhism is a science. That’s doing a Buddhism a disservice considering how fast scientific theories change (consider for example Newton’s laws of motion which have all shown to not be true under certain circumstance with the advent of Einsteinian physics). The Dhamma on the other hand has the quality of being akālika (timeless), and ehipassika (inviting verification). If you consider teachings such as rebirth untenable, you have to at least follow the path of practice the Buddha recommends that he claims lets you find out – instead of making assumption based on one’s own views.

Regarding proof of Nirvāna, there is a discourse in the Pāḷi Canon specifically relating to this, where the Buddha states that until one reaches the far shore there is an element of conviction (saddhā) that needs to come to play.

Chathura R De Silva said,

May 7, 2010 @ 8:29 am

It’s hard for the believers to give up on certain beliefs even though no scientific proof is found. I personally think living with doubt is better than having a blind faith. And most importantly you don’t have to believe in karma, reincarnation, nirvana, etc… to be a good person. Karma is a concept invented to keep people away from doing bad things.

If you remember the ‘Goni-Billa’ concept which our parents told us about when we were young to keep us away from doing bad things it won’t be hard for you to understand what Karma is (that is if you have grown up mentally)

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 7, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Dear Yapa,

You said:
“There I have clearly shown the justifiability of separating western religion from state

Haven’t I logically proved that separating Buddhism from state is not reasonable?”

All I can say is, using this logic, we can show that Santa should not be separated from the state because Santa cannot be disproved. Flying teapottery cannot be separated nor can Shilboot! According to this logic, anything that cannot be disproved cannot be reasonably separated from the state. Therefore, there’s nothing to stop me from suggesting that Shilboot should become Sri Lanka’s official religion. Would your consider that a reasonable rebuttal of your point?

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 7, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

Dear Citizen

Nice piece. I would especially like to highlight the following in what you said: “God, Nirvana, Karma and reincarnation can never be offered as facts or absolute truths, let alone be pitted against one another to asses the truthfulness of one concept compared to another – simply because any arrogant belief in their certainty leaves no room for the inquisitive, questioning pursuit of higher wisdom they all espouse and encourage.”

Unfortunately, if you followed the Akon thread, you’ll see that this is not the attitude adopted by some of the believers.

I would like to highlight, once again, the main reasons why the validity of Kamma, Rebirth, Nibbana (KRN) are being questioned.

1. To emphasize that religion – a personal belief – must be separate from the state
2. To dismantle these conceited claims of knowing absolute truths or being special – while having no basis upon which to do so (allowing such claims to go unchallenged automatically enables a privileged, unquestionable status – which no belief deserves)
3. To question the paranoia resulting from considering oneself a guardian of some holy, indisputable truth – when no such holy, indisputable truth is apparent. (Not to mention the resultant debilitating effect on society)

Therefore, this whole issue came about *not* because anyone thinks KRN is impossible or because of some “decadent, western conspiracy” to undermine Buddhism, as a certain believer seemed to think. It is to challenge dangerous and fundamentalist claims such as “Separating Buddhism from the state = Separating the Truth from the state”.

Is it hoped that the following would be addressed by those discussing this issue.
1. How should religion interact with the state?
2. What are the responsibilities of the believers towards those who do not believe in that same idea?
3. How should a moderate Buddhist react when another Buddhist makes a claim of knowing an absolute truth and/or that Buddhism = Truth and therefore separating Buddhism from the state = separating the truth from the state?
4. What are the negative effects of those suffering from delusions of persecution (as in religious paranoia) and what are the solutions?

cheers!
/SD (I really need to shorten my ill-thought nom de plume)

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 7, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Dear Tis-a-small-world,

You said: “it’s a well known fact that religious beliefs and teachings cannot be tested scientifically nor it cannot be tested or proven through scientific experiments.”

I understand your point but I don’t feel that it is necessarily correct. If a religion claims to be able to affect the physical world around it, which is within the purview of science, then there may be a way to highlight the occurrence of these events. For example, if someone claims a miracle, then such miracles must be shown around us. So far, miracles have only proven to be “God-of-the-gaps” style arguments.

Similarly, if someone claims that past lives can be recalled, then one can potentially take steps to prove it. Unfortunately, apart from that one paper that believers often cite, which is “20 cases suggestive of reincarnation” with “suggestive” being the operative word, there does not seem to be any credible evidence in this regard (Apart from the wild ramblings of “Lost city of Atlantis” type characters). And one should read the criticisms against that paper too before one becomes overly impressed that the paper is conclusive in any way.

Therefore, it is far better to take steps to verify that these things are indeed true, rather than simply assuming they are. What if they are not true? I would think carrying out more research in such areas would be a very good idea and something that believers should concentrate on (With the scientific attitude of disproving oneself, rather than proving oneself).

You said: “I believe in Karma, Nirvana and re-incarnation based on my knowledge on the philosophy of Lord Buddha, although i cannot prove my beliefs scientifically.”

Sure. Your personal choices are your own and no one would need to take issue with it, even if someone decides to believe in the FSM or Santa. Therefore, I personally don’t even find it productive to raise the issue. Many possible scientific contradictions have already been raised but believer are rarely shaken by such arguments. Instead, it would be good to focus on how you see your belief interacting with those with different beliefs.

In that regard, could you please let us know your position on this post.

Thanks!
/SD

Chula said,

May 7, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

I mentioned it was a hypothesis based on the research already concluded. The book I cited is not the only source but probably the most recognized one. I was pointing out that his methodology amounted to historical research, and no matter how many cases one brings up that doesn’t conclusively “prove” anything, scientifically speaking. For example, does archeological evidence of the existence of different civilizations “prove” their existence? It’s merely the most plausible explanation.

So as I mentioned before, you are looking for proof from a system that fails in this regard. The evidence from this research was suggestive of rebirth, and since there is no other plausible explanation, it would be unscientific to dismiss the evidence just based on one’s preferential views, don’t you think? Research in this area is sparse because any scientist has to be extremely courageous since it amounts to career suicide to pursue – especially in the west where god-believers would put one to task. You might find this professor’s conclusions on this research relevant.

About an Arahant living, I think you should find out about the Thai Forest Tradition. The monk who started the tradition Ajahn Mun is widely considered an Arahant and around 20-30 of his disciples as well. Ajahn Maha Boowa is the only direct disciple still living, and the tradition is still strong. Again, it seems you are talking of a topic you do not know much about except for what you heard from your misguided parents when you were a kid. If you know anything of Buddhism, you would know that what you get as Buddhism and what is considered kamma in Sri Lankan culture sometimes has no relation to what the earliest known texts say.

Chula said,

May 7, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

@Chathura R De Silva: I suggest you read up on what Kamma really means based on the early discourses of the Pali Canon instead of assuming that your parents know what they are talking about.

@spiritualist: Buddhism teaches the path to abandon desire (not denying desire). Your point that that itself is a desire is oft-quoted by people who have no idea about the Dhamma. This is one of the first things that’s clarified. You need desire to follow the path. This discourse is specifically about a person who’s making the same claim – I suggest you read it. Ven. Ananda brings up a great simile to answer the question.

BalangodaMan said,

May 7, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

Chula,

Welcome to the debate. I think you will find the original Akon thread interesting!

The author Sujewa is not criticising Buddhism. The repost from SomewhatDisgusted summarises why this debate is important for all of us who desires a world free from hostility, prejudice, bigotry.

Karma
——
You describe karma as ‘consequences of actions’ like (1) the result of exercising free-will and (2) the effect of positive or negative thinking.

Well (1) is obvious. Needs no proof. If you put your finger in a fire it will hurt.
(2) has been much discussed and is well observed and much written about in books on self-improvement. Again, is observable and can be experienced at first hand. We see this for ourselves in our daily lives. (You may have read the classic ‘The Power of Positive Thinking’ by Norman Vincent Peale (who lived to 95 so I believe he practiced what he preached – literally, as he was a preacher!). Good. Most people can verify (1) and (2).

BUT the ‘karma’ debated here (let’s call it ‘Karma Experiences of the Third Kind’) is something entirely different. This debate is about a metaphysical process that transgresses separate and serial human lives. IOW, something like ‘if you put your finger in a fire it will hurt … in the next life’.

This 3rd idea requires a HUGE ‘leap of faith’ to regard as even similar to (1) and (2)!

The Believers have been using the obvious validity of (1) and (2) to put forward a case that (3) is therefore similarly valid. Which is poppycock. This is the problem!

BalangodaMan said,

May 7, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

Dear Ordinary Lankan,

While I agree with much of what you say I think you have missed the point of this debate.

It started evidently in November 2009 with The Believers justifying certain religious claims on the basis that their religion is the TRUTH. Then going on to claim that it can be proved – while proving that others are not. Then claiming that it should be the basis on which a state should (or even can?) be run, because ‘it is the truth’. These statements raise some big issues for society. The moderates reading these statements have put to the proponents the natural consequences of such narrow-minded thinking. I entered this discussion when I was appalled by some of the ludicrous claims of ‘my god is better than your god’.

The Agnostic camp DOES regard religion as a personal and private thing for believers. What they are arguing for is not to have religion IMPOSED upon them by the state.

Off the Cuff said,

May 8, 2010 @ 12:56 am

Dear All,

The Agnostics were challenged to prove that Science was a “Mature” tool to investigate a Philosophy like Buddhism. So far that proof has not been forthcoming.

It was proved to the Agnostics that “Science” is still immature and cannot be used as a tool to dissect Buddhist Philosophy (please see below). Anyone who wishes to use Science as a tool should first establish that Science is an appropriate tool and that it has the ability to explain physically observable phenomena. That this is not so, is seen by the many events that still remain mysteries unexplainable by Science.

If one fails to establish that Science can authoritatively explain or prove all facets of reality, then the use of Science to disprove or prove Buddhism would be akin to using a yardstick to measure one’s weight. The Challenge before the Agnostics is therefore to first prove that Science indeed has the authority that they claim it to have in the field of Philosophy.

The Agnostics who have been harping on Science have failed to explain the failure of Science to either explain or disprove or prove the following physically observed, documented and repeatable phenomena.

Acupuncture is based on the Chinese philosophy of Yin Yang forces. It has been used in Lanka to carry out over 5000 major operations including Caesarean sections where the mother was fully conscious and chatting with the Acupuncturist Dr Anton Jayasuriya, a specialist in Rheumatology and Consultant at the Colombo South Teaching Hospital. She ate Biscuits while the Obstetrician was cutting into her abdomen, an unheard of event in Medical Anaesthesia. Though unexplainable by Science, Acupuncture is recognised by the WHO as a treatment for many illnesses including life threatening ones and to induce the turning of a baby presenting a breach position in the womb to the head down position required for normal delivery. No Scientific explanation is presented as to how the apparently arbitrary, sticking of needles in to the body can achieve such physical results. The Chinese Philosophy claims that these needles restore the balanced state of Yin Yang forces the imbalance of which cause illnesses.

The Buddha whose mind was developed to a very high level of acuity is said to have possessed the ability to “See” events happening thousands of miles away. An Agnostic would sneer at such a claim as it is not at all “Scientific”. It cannot be proven using Science hence it is False, Hallucination, Old wives tales, Conjecture and belongs in the Realm of Fairy Tales. Aesop could have done better they would say. But is it?

“Remote Viewing” or the ability of the “Mind to See” objects / events that is situated or happening at unknown locations thousands of miles away was used by the US Military (documented in the Stargate project). It was used to locate a downed Soviet bomber in Africa. President Carter referred to this in one of his speeches. It also provided strategic information about Russia’s Nuclear facilities and a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine. The use of “Remote Viewing” by the US military has so far been unexplainable by Science.

The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that Science does not know.

The carry over of Karma to a subsequent birth, Rebirth and Nibbana may be True and may be not be true. Buddhists believe it to be true as Karma (action) and Vipaka (result) that follows Karma is observable in the current life. It is a reality observable daily. Science is too primitive a tool in the field of Philosophy to make a definite statement. It’s foolhardy to assert that it can.

Science is just too primitive and is not up to the task of investigating a Philosophy.

I would agree with Chula’s statement “First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it.”

Chula said,

May 8, 2010 @ 3:27 am

@BalangodaMan: I never said Sujewa was against Buddhism – just that he didn’t know enough of what it was to talk about it. Thinking Buddhism is what you see in Sri Lankan culture is just being naive. It might be fun for arguments but serves no purpose in terms of understanding the teachings. I think this is due to the lack of availability of the earliest known Pali texts to the general public – something that would hopefully change with the adoption of the internet.

I never argued that I could prove kamma when it came to rebirth. The kamma that is observable here and now convinces one to practice the path. When it comes to whether rebirth is true, the Buddha claims that knowledge can be attained through meditation (4th jhana onwards). I was simply stating that Sujewa was asking for proof from a field incapable of providing conclusive evidence while neglecting the fact that the Buddha laid out a path of practice inviting verification. The conviction that people have that rebirth is true is a hypothesis which actually has some scientific evidence to back it as I pointed out earlier. So it’s not some irrational leap of faith as people claim when trying to put Buddhism (I should say I mean only the early teachings here) into the typical “religion” basket.

A lot of this criticism is stemming from the atheist movement in the west that is gaining ground. What some people seem not realize is that those criticisms are mainly directed towards the Abrahamic religions those scientists grew up with, and the criticism of Buddhism is mainly coming from ignorant ideas of what it is assuming Dalai Lama’s Tibetan version is all it is.

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 3:54 am

Hi All,

The intro to this article (at the previous – Akon & Buddhism – article) says that the key arguments have been summarised here – that is not accurate – what I wanted to do was remove the most interesting aspect of the previous article – which, to me, was Yapa claiming that he can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation, nirvana using modern science & math, etc., & the conversation/debate that followed from that point – & keep the discussion focused & easy to follow at a new place. So, any participants from the previous debate/discussion who want to summarize (sp?) the key points of their view as it relates to the topic of this article, please feel free to do so. Since there were over 1000 comments at the previous article & since many comments were from people who were arguing the point opposite to mine, I felt that it was better to allow the original authors to summarize their views, as opposed to me selecting certain parts of their views out of the 1000+ comments & re-posting here (which could miss important aspects of their argument). So, summarize away Belivers – why do you think that karma, reincarnation, nirvana should be accepted as a real item/a real thing that exists in this world & affects us/actual, real humans? (also, feel free to summarize your views non-belivers/agnostics)

Thanks a lot!

- S

wijayapala said,

May 8, 2010 @ 5:40 am

OTC,

“Where did the Buddha say that you cannot avoid Karma? Where did the Buddha advice to be resigned to one’s fate passively?”

The Buddha never advised to be passive (SomewhatDisgusted is having problems comprehending that). However, Dhammapada verse 127 says this about avoiding kamma:

Neither in sky nor surrounding by sea,
nor by dwelling in a mountain cave,
nowhere is found that place in earth
where one’s from evil kamma free.

Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi had to say (his entire article on the Dhammapada is worth reading):
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/dhammapada.html

Our moral intuition, our innate sense of moral justice, tells us that there must be some principle of compensation at work in the world whereby goodness meets with happiness and evil meets with suffering. But everyday experience shows us exactly the opposite. We all know of highly virtuous people beset with every kind of hardship and thoroughly bad people who succeed in everything they do. We feel that there must be some correction to this imbalance, some force that will tilt the scales of justice into the balance that seems right, but our daily experience seems to contradict this intuition totally.

At the second level of instruction found in the Dhammapada the content of the message is basically the same as that of the first level: it is the same set of moral injunctions for abstaining from evil and doing good. The difference lies in the viewpoint from which these precepts are issued and the purpose for which they are taken up. At this level the precepts are prescribed to show us the way to achieve long-range happiness and freedom from sorrow, not only in the visible sphere of the present life, but far beyond into the distant future in our subsequent transmigration in samsara. Despite the apparent discrepancy between action and result, an all-embracing law ensures that ultimately moral justice triumphs. In the short run the good may suffer and the evil may prosper. But all willed actions bring their appropriate results: if one acts or speaks with an evil mind, suffering follows just as the wheel follows the foot of the draught-ox; if one acts or speaks with a pure mind, happiness follows like a shadow that never departs (vv.1-2). The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he is tormented by his conscience and destined to planes of misery. The doer of good rejoices here and hereafter, he enjoys a good conscience and is destined to realms of bliss (vv. 15- 18). To follow the law of virtue leads upwards, to happiness and joy and to higher rebirths; to violate the lead leads downwards, to suffering and to lower rebirths. The law is inflexible. Nowhere in the world can the evil-doer escape the result of his evil kamma, “neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean nor by entering into mountain clefts” (v. 127). The good person will reap the rewards of his or her good kamma in future lives with the same certainty with which a traveler, returning home after a long journey, can expect to be greeted by his family and friends (v. 220).

wijayapala said,

May 8, 2010 @ 6:52 am

Dear Somewhat Disgusted,

“To me, ending suffering is an important priority. But somehow, the Buddhist version of ending suffering doesn’t quite do it for me. You know, looking at people and going, oh too bad for that dude’s karma, must have been a serial killer in his previous life, good lesson for all of us. Let’s just sit under a bo tree and meditate for Nibbana….They don’t even know what in the world they are paying for so they can never really correct themselves! Aaww… These universal laws are so unfair! Life sucks. Let’s meditate!…No thank you. I prefer suffering to end through provision of earthly comforts to those in need due to *no fault of their own*, followed by intellectual liberation.”

Yet again your incredible secular agnostic capacity for STRAW MAN arguments has rendered me speechless.

Clearly my knowledge of Buddhism is vastly inferior to yours, ***as I was never taught nor have I ever learned on my own that Buddhists are supposed to ignore the suffering and misfortune of others, or that Buddhists should look down on people because of their kamma.***

Apparently your knowledge of the Dhamma is so vast that it exceeds even the Buddha’s! As the Vinaya says, the Buddha and Ananda tended to sick monks that others ignored, saying “He who attends on the sick attends on me.”:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/sick.html

I know it’s asking a great deal for a “secular rationalist” to cite evidence, but would it be possible for you to show me the exact teaching of the Buddha’s that tells us to be blissfully detached from others’ suffering?

And to take things further, could you share with us your personal experiences in providing “earthly comforts to those in need due to *no fault of their own*?” After all, you would never make an empty claim, right?

Let me turn your argument in your own face: why would secular agnostics who reject kamma and samsara have any interest in helping others, when they can use the time and effort on themselves? After all, we Buddhists are bound by the dogma that the effects of responding to or ignoring others’ suffering will manifest either in the same lifetime or a future birth. If I were in your place, I wouldn’t worry about any of these effects as everything would end with death. What did Epicurus say about altruism?

“In fact, current research bears out the notion quite well. Please read “The Happines Hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom” by Jonathan Haidt.”

Before I read this book, why don’t you cite some of this pathbreaking research?

I went to amazon.com and read a review that said, “First of all, the main hypothesis, that people make decisions with their gut and then use their brains to rationalize those decisions, is well supported.” Obviously this is a total lie. We all know that secular agnostics never rely on such unscientific, irrational things like intuition or faith and are beings of pure reason. So already I am distrusting Mr. Haidt’s conclusions.

“IMHO, The main priority for humankind should be finding out the reasons for our existence – i.e. Finding Yapa’s elephant. This is not a problem for Buddhists, because someone has already found it,”

Really, Mr. Straw Man? Who found the reasons for our existence, or whom do the Buddhists believe found them (since I clearly don’t know)? Certainly not the Buddha; the answers he generally gave to these kinds of questions gave the impression that he wasn’t interested in simple existence as compared with samsara, a condition which you do not accept (based on your faith).

“If you can point to anybody else who laid out the means to find the end of suffering without requiring faith”
End of suffering? Without requiring faith? Oh dear Wijayapala. I’m unable to compute as usual. Could you kindly explain?

I already explained that Siddhartha Gautama clearly did not invoke any kind of faith to become a Buddha (whoops caught myself.. I almost referred to him incorrectly as THE Buddha), as there was no clear path for him to follow. He just tried different things- although not in a sporadic or undisciplined way- until he found something that worked. As a Buddhist I have to accept the tragedy that Siddhartha probably somewhat resembled you “unable to compute” secular agnostics, although his priorities were clearly different- finding the end to Dukkha.

“I already knew that!! Is this supposed to be the Fifth Noble Truth or something???”
If you already knew that, why do you keep demanding the same response?

Because you are?

“You can do better- you can provide evidence of your own to back YOUR claims! At least you can practice what you preach!”
Sure thing. What is it that you want me to back up? You don’t seem to fundamentally understand that an agnostic’s position can *never* be undermined. For the simple reason that they do not believe in anything if there is not enough *reason* to believe it.

What is your *reason* for believing that the mind is an illusion? You never explained that one, instead relying on your identity as secular agnostic to serve as an authority unto yourself.

“Current evidence? Our post-life responsibility is to provide nutrition to maggots.”

And here we come to the next weapon in the Secular Agnostic’s arsenal, Circular Logic:

1) Physical evidence is the only evidence we can accept, because

2) only physical phenomena are real, the rest are illusions;

3) our proof that only physical phenomena are real is that they’re the only evidence that we can accept…

“Thank you again for answering my own point. How did the Sinhala-Buddhists become the “single most powerful entity in SL?””
What other group makes up 70% of the population and are capable of making or breaking government?

Sigh.. as usual, you aren’t able to compute! I didn’t ask whether the Sinhala Buddhists are the “single most powerful entity in SL” but how they came to be.

“Read Dawkins. Hitler was a catholic.”

Instead of simply name-dropping, why don’t you list the arguments in favor of your position (here, that Hitler was a practicing Catholic)?

Wikipedia claims that Dawkins took Hitler’s statements out of context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views
In the below quote, the first two sentences are often left out, as has been done by Richard Dawkins,[33] for example, leaving the context to seem as if, as opposed to mocking Christianity and Christian belief, Hitler were making some public statement of his own embrace of Christianity. In response to Lerchenfeld, Hitler – feigning respect for Lerchenfeld – mocked both Lerchenfeld and Lerchenfeld’s beliefs and then skillfully turned the life of Jesus on its head for the purposes of furthering National Socialism. At the Bürgerbräukeller on April 12, 1922, Hitler said:

“I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling ‘as a man and a Christian’ prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.[34][35]“

“Stalin was an atheist. But *neither of them* killed in the name of atheism. But there have been enough wars where people have killed in the *name of religion*. Not a difficult point to grasp I believe.”

The least difficult point to grasp is Tool #3 in your Secular Agnostic box: Shifting the Context of the Argument When it Isn’t Going Your Way.

I asked what you guys would do if Buddhism in SL were threatened. You answered, “As for the secular rationalist brigade, they might not fight, no. Fighting, killing and murdering is best left to religious people,” implying that secular rationalists do not fight, kill, or murder people the way religious people do. I demonstrated that they most certainly do, in the name of “secular rationalist” belief systems like Naziism and Leninism-Stalinism.

“As absolutely reassuring as that is, I’m afraid that here I have to say that I don’t believe that you will.”
Doesn’t matter either way. But FYI, in that last thread, I was promoted to General by no other than Mr. Yapa over here. For fighting against the unethical Christians – no less! Now that I am ready to accept the Yapa-Godel synthesis, doubtless another promotion is due – maybe chief of Buddhist defense staff?

I entirely agree with your statement that your intentions/beliefs do not matter. But is the rest of your above statement Tool #3 at work again?

“Please explain, in concrete, NON-ABSTRACT terms how Sri Lanka is not a “secular” or whatever you want country, how that is harming non-Buddhists, and what should be changed that will prevent this harm. Be SPECIFIC, and please avoid generalities that you can apply to any country.”
Currently. I think Sri Lanka looks good on paper as usual. First, I would like it to *at least stay that way*. In practice, we both know that this whole Sinhala-Tamil problem was at least partly fueled by the identity crisis of the Sinhalese. We both agreed that in turn was fueled at least partly by Buddhist paranoia. So that is clearly hurting Tamils – who are non-Buddhists. I don’t know how this harm can be prevented, but we can jolly well start by dismantling this insane conceit.

What “insane conceit” are you talking about?

The problem with your argument is that “this whole Sinhala-Tamil problem” is not the same now as it was before the war. The Tamils today are in no condition to threaten Buddhism (or anything else) largely thanks to V. Prabakaran’s destruction of Tamil society. This is certainly not to say that the Tamils ever had any hostile intent towards Buddhism, but simply to point out that even a complete idiot would be hard pressed to justify suppressing Tamils today.

“And I’ve repeatedly explained, we branched into this topic on Yapa’s claims of Buddhists being guardians of holy, absolute truths.”

What does any of this have to do with Akon? Akon’s rejection was primarily the result of Dr. Mervyn Silva wanting to settle a score with Sirasa TV, and the video provided a convenient excuse to hold a thug convention. Akon’s use of the Buddha statue explains why most people did not speak out against Mervyn’s actions- why defend something which you find to be insulting?

“As long as these delusions of grandeur persist, I fail to see how we can talk about secularism, without dismantling the conceit! Didn’t Yapa claim that religion and state cannot be separate, because that would be akin to separating the absolute truth from the state?”

What is your fixation with Yapa anyway? You seem far more interested in interacting with him than me or OTC. Do you consider us to be less Buddhists than Yapa is?

“Didn’t you argue earlier that Kamma and rebirth were an essential part of Buddhism? How did it suddenly become something “directly observable by experience”?”

Uh, how are those two statements contradictory, and more importantly how did YOU resolve those contradictions?? After all, Sur pointed out your own claim that the Four Noble Truths- which inherently accept the phenomenon of samsara as the key problem- “are all understandable phenomena which can be subjected to a reasoned analysis based on our own observations.” (your words not mine)

wijayapala said,

May 8, 2010 @ 7:15 am

Dear spiritualist

“Buddhism believes in denying desires !!! Is this pragmatic? desiring to abandon desire is itself a desire!!!!”

Somebody pointed this out to the Buddha and he gave a good, simple response. Unfortunately I cannot find it so we’ll have to settle for the long and confusing answer. Enjoy!

http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/thera/013-desire.htm

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 7:39 am

Hi Chula,

Thanks for the comment.

RE: “First of all, I think the poster needs to know his Buddhism before criticizing it.”

Not criticizing anything, just asking how something works, from people who say they are certain that something works a certain way & that they can show that it works that way.

RE:
“Kamma in the Buddha’s Dhamma is intention (or cetanā), and the result of kamma can be seen here and now. If you put your finger in the fire, it burns. That’s kamma in action. If you have an angry thought, it affects your breathing and body. That’s kamma.”

That’s also cause & effect. What about the karma that affects the next life, or this one from a previous life, as taught in Buddhism?

RE:
“Now since the poster seems to focus exclusively on kamma and rebirth (not reincarnation btw – which presupposes a soul that transmigrates), this the Buddha teaches can be directly experienced by meditation practice – specifically through entering the fourth jhāna and inclining your mind towards the knowledge. Of course, if you want some kind of mathematical equation proving rebirth, you’re missing the whole point. The Buddha’s teaching is about experiences that are directly realizable through practice – he just shows what the practice is.”

How many practitioners have directly realized nirvana through the methods prescribed by the Buddha? 100? 10,000? 1 million? If none that you know of have attained nirvana, then why not? & or if some have (or say they have) can they show you that they were able to do so using methods described in Buddhism? Is the system/the method faulty? Or is nirvana, instead of being an achievement that a human being is capable of accomplishing, more of a symbol – an idea to get people to follow a certain way of looking at the world & living in the world?

RE:
“This is like criticizing Einstein that his theory of relativity makes no sense by a guy who has no understanding of physics.”

I assume Einstein’s theory of relativity makes sense to physicists, or some physicists. And, as far as I know (perhaps Heshan can add some thoughts re: this) theory of relativity has been demonstrated to be true using experiments & examples. Regardless, we are not debating the theory of relativity here.

RE:
“You are asking for proof through the scientific method which fails to give you conclusive answers in this regard.”

Use whatever method you wish, as long as it is something that can be tested by a non-beliver.

RE:
“Science is no closer to knowing whether there is life after death than anytime before.”

Great, not a concern here, however.

RE:
“There is however, good para-psychological research done on claims of rebirth, with very good evidence. A great example is the research done by Ian Stevenson – I recommend his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Even avowed western atheists such as Sam Harris considers this research warranting more interest.”

I’ve read recently a couple of cases re: rebirth pointed out by commenter OTC, & also I read up on sites that debunk rebirth claims – at present I can’t support the rebirth theory – primarily because I do not have any memories of life before this one, & neither do thousands of people I know (as far as I know). However, if you are confident that rebirth can be proven to be true/real, get things organized & make it happen – looking forward to seeing the tests that prove that rebirth is true/real.

RE:
“But does this prove rebirth? Of course not. There is no scientific method to prove rebirth. Instead of concluding that therefore this must be untrue, the logical conclusion is to consider it a possible hypothesis with good historical evidence (based on the above). This is completely different from Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), where blind faith on a creator entity and eternal life have no evidence whatsoever.”

I see no difference between blind faith in a creator, & blind faith in the mechanisms that make Buddhism work as a religion – primarily karma, & related to that rebirth, & then nirvana – as the way out of the karma based rebirth cycle. Both the creator god & the existence of karma are fantastic & speculative religious ideas. If someone wanted to point to something that they belive proves the existence of a creator god, i am sure they can point to many complex & little understood phenomenon (as you did when you pointed to rebirth in support of ideas in Buddhism) – however, that would not be proof for the existence of a creator god (for me, that would require an actual meeting with the god & then testing the god out to see if he/she/it is in fact the creator of the worlds, so, basically, my barrier for accepting the creator god idea being real is pretty much the same as the barrier i have for accepting karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as true/real).

RE:
“Also, the although I’d disagree that Buddhism is a science. That’s doing a Buddhism a disservice considering how fast scientific theories change (consider for example Newton’s laws of motion which have all shown to not be true under certain circumstance with the advent of Einsteinian physics). The Dhamma on the other hand has the quality of being akālika (timeless),”

I am pretty sure that it is meaningless to say that the Dhamma is timeless in this context. Do you mean that the ideas that make up the Buddha’s teachings have lasted a long time? Well, so have many other things – including very bizarre stuff that have very little use to modern humans (such as belief in the existence of faries, etc.). Timeless does not equal real (as opposed to fabricated, imagined, speculative).

RE:
“… and ehipassika (inviting verification). ”

Yeah, that’s what we (the agnostics) are trying to get – some verification for the grand claims made by buddhism & more to the point – the belivers who belive that the speculative elements in Buddhism are real/true/can be proven to be a part of this world.

RE:
“If you consider teachings such as rebirth untenable, you have to at least follow the path of practice the Buddha recommends that he claims lets you find out – instead of making assumption based on one’s own views.”

I have followed the path recommended by the Buddha, and, though it has many useful things, it does not (or did not for me at least) result in being able to verify karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana as being real things that exist in this world/universe & affects humans as described in Buddhism. Nor do I know of any Buddhist who has proven that they have attained direct knowledge of karma, rebirth, nirvana & can demonstrate that they in fact have achieved what they say they achieved.

RE:
“Regarding proof of Nirvāna, there is a discourse in the Pāḷi Canon specifically relating to this, where the Buddha states that until one reaches the far shore there is an element of conviction (saddhā) that needs to come to play.”

So, a little bit of faith is required, another words. However, many have traveled the Buddhist path since the path was reportedly first laid out in this world by The Buddha 2500+ years or so ago. How many out of these followers of the path realized the ultimate goal – nirvana? How can you be certain, regardless of the number that you may give?

Buddhism – SL Buddhism – Therevada Buddhism – has many useful elements (such as promotion of self-reliance, promotion of testing accepted teachings, an anti-racist stance – though this may have been often overlooked in SL), however, being an ancient religion, it also has several key faith based items – such as accepting that the Buddha is who he was/is said to be, that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that exist in the universe, etc. Even though reminding people that certain elements of Buddhism cannot be demonstrated as real to a non-believer will not do any significant harm to Buddhism, it may save some non-belivers from the evil actions that may come from blind belivers who are under the impression that their religion is ture/real, the one true religion, & that all other religions & philosophical views (including non-belief) are speculation/false & thus, their religion must be protected at all costs (including at the cost of living human beings). Thus, this discussion has come into being. We are going to try to trade a little bit of the believers’ closed arrogance & ignorance for the agnostics’ naturally humble & open not-knowing-for-certain-ness, at least that’s the plan

- S

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 8:03 am

Dear BalangodaMan;

You say;

[... rather than Mr Yapa who claims to be able to supply the impossible!

Thanks! (as Mr Y would say)]

For my benefit could you please specifically show the readers and me (quoting my posts) how I claims to be able to supply the impossibles?

Then we can see whether “your claim” (about my supply of impossibilities) is something claimed by me or a misinterpretation created by you.

Please be kind enough to show what I said very, very specifically.

Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 8:26 am

One last thought before I quit for the day – I see that OTC is using his acupuncture (sp?) defense again & that Wijayapala (& OTC) are fully ignoring that fact that Yapa said that he can prove the existence of karma, reincarnation/rebith, nirvana using modern science/math – except that it would be very difficult for ordinary people to understand. So, those “misunderstandings” will have to be cleared away tomorrow (fellow agnostics, feel free to assist).

Perhaps it is a language/symbol issue, I will try to use a new set of symbols/words to see if OTC & Wijayapala can comprehend the agnostics’ challenge and what it means so that they may respond to it directly & not divert themselves to side issues.

Be back tomorrow, good night all, & thanks for your interest in this discussion.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 8:46 am

Chula,

RE: “Also I’d like to comment that faith in Buddhism is not the same as the blind faith you get in other religions. Actually a better translation of the Pāḷi term saddhā is conviction.”

Semantics, but let’s see if we can clarify this futher by answering some of the other statements you post below.

“And it really is something similar to trusting your guitar teacher to teach you how to master the guitar when you have very little idea if his instructions would work. But with practice, as you get better, what little conviction you had increases and you start believing mastery is possible. This practice of the Dhamma works the same way.”

So, in essence, practicing Buddhism or the Dharma should get the practitioner close to nirvana, right? But, since it cannot be demonstrated that nirvana is a real element of this world or this universe, how can one demonstrate “getting closer to” the promised goal – nirvana? Thus, Buddhism does not work like guitar lessons – in guitar lessons the student can test him/her self (via using recordings at various points in time, etc.) to determine if he/she is learning anything.

RE:
“The Buddha’s teaching is a matter of skill (kusala), which is practiced to attain the desirable results. When you start off, the conviction you have could be as small as trusting a friend who says meditation helps you get more control of the mind, or trusting scientific research that suggests that meditation helps sound cognitive functioning.”

But the core goal, or the main goal, is not meditation proficiency. The Buddha is not famous for being a meditation teacher only/the key offer from Buddhism has not been just meditation – but an escape from a never ending round of birth & death & rebirth that the Buddhists say their path can liberate one from.

Of course, unless nirvana is a symbolic device only, which the belivers do not accept, thus we continue

RE:
“But the further you go along the path, as you see that what the Buddha claims is indeed verifiable with your own experience, your conviction of the goal increases.”

Tell us then, how far have you gone along the path & what proof have you discovered that tells you that you are closer to nirvana than, let’s say, 10 years ago?

RE:
“This is very different from blind faith – the Buddha talks of guarding the truth and being completely honest on what you know and what you believe – the simile of the elephant footprint clearly points to that fact.”

The very same thing as blind faith, though expressed differently. Both the priests of Christianity and the monks of Buddhism are asking you to belive that Christ and Buddha are who the priests/monks say they are & that the path, the religions, will take you closer to the goals reportedly demonstrated as achieveable by the two founders (or the so-called founders/inventors) of the religions.

RE:
“There are numerous other relevant discourses, I recommend the site Access to Insight to anyone interested.”

Sounds good, check it out interested people.

More non-belief-bliss inducing writing tomorrow , hopefully.

- S

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 8:59 am

Correction……

Didn’t I show you the Similar concussions arrived by modern science……..

In above “concussions” should be replaced with “conclusions”.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

RE: Your post of May 7, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

Here you are trying to narrow down the scope of the discussion for your advantage as cunningly as ever. The discussion was never limited or confined to to such a narrow strip, which you are trying to limit as you have already sensed the destiny of your arguments. You are cunningly trying to wash “your hand” from the other perspectives, sending your peers to the guillotine for your “collective sins”

You are again trying to run away betraying your long lasting friends.

Please at least be honest to your friends!

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted ;

You say;

[Therefore, it is far better to take steps to verify that these things are indeed true, rather than simply assuming they are.]

How do you verify? With your thimble of outdated knowledge trickled down from Newtonian + faith based world outlook?

Are you dreaming to measure the ocean with your outdated metre ruler?

I cannot stop my laughter. My god!

Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Hello Everyone,

Here is just one of the many instances where Yapa indicated that he may be able to demonstrate to non-belivers the truth/real-ness of karma, rebirth, nirvana (more examples to follow):

From: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538, by Yapa:

“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”

To read rest of Yapa’s comment, & related comments, go here:

http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538

More, & clearly expressed, views re: the ability to prove karma, rebirth, nirvana being real aspects of this world – in statements made by Yapa (& perhaps other belivers), coming soon.

- S

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Dear Wijayapal;

Thank you wijayapala for providing the conceptualize notion, of A straw man argument.

This is all these three blind men have been doing all this time.

Thanks again and I re- post the link considering its valuable significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw%20man

Thanks again!

is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually re

BalangodaMan said,

May 8, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Dear Observer,

Re. ‘Agnostic’ tag.
Ok, fair point – agnosticism is a passive intellectual position – but see this …

Agreed also, the motivations of the Agnostics in this debate is more like that of ‘Skeptics’.

However, Agnostics can (and do, and should, in my view) challenge Dogmatists when something significant in society (and the world) is at stake because of bigotry, prejudice, and childhood brainwashing. The world cannot sit back when religious ‘TRUTH’ that promises fantastic rewards make young men fly aeroplanes into tall buildings full of innocent people.

Sujewa has already pointed to the arrogance of claiming the ‘TRUTH’ as belonging to one’s own religion – whether it is ‘the god given promised land’ (Isreal and SL) or Jesus said ‘no one will enter the kingdom of heaven except through me’ or any other such.

Dear Observer, we can ‘observe’ as much as we like BUT if we do nothing about it there could soon be nothing to observe!

BalangodaMan said,

May 8, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I can see this new thread fast becoming a whirlpool of the same arguments that went before.

Dear Wijayapala, OTC, Mr Yapa,

May I just repeat, trust me, there are many other religions in the world. They too believe passionately about what they have been told as children, by people they trust. In my view, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, all of you, have essentially the same belief pattern – they are just called something different, or explained differently, by people in different frocks.

There is the promise of a ‘good place’, there is a ‘bad place’, there is a god, there is a chief celestial administrator, there are the terrestrial administrators and the supreme ambassador on Earth. There is sin, and virtuous acts. There is penance. We just call them different words. The easiest common denominator to pin down is ‘faith’.

In Christianity/Islam the good place is heaven/paradise. In Buddhism it is nirvana. The bad place is hell, or in Buddhism it is being born. All humans pray to some degree – a desire to connect or plead or negotiate (?) with a higher power, even just acknowledge. Why do people in temples place their palms together and place it at the forehead? So Buddhists too believe in a god.

It’s only when cultures came into conflict (by physical proximity, migration, politics, war) that humans started to ‘differentiate’ our ‘truth’ from their ‘lies’. Then follows prejudice, hostility, death. But it does not take a lot of brains to see that essentially the original ideas were the same.

In a modern society (educated?) we should be able to see beyond the cosmetic differences. Forget the divisive tactics of our recent ancestors – they had a good reason at the time, but those reasons are no longer appropriate in today’s world. Our problem (the one we are trying to end) is that some people believe that it IS necessary to propagate these differences into future generations.

Whilst having been born in a Buddhist society, I have had the good fortune of living amongst people of many of the world’s great cultures. Trust me, we do not have a monopoly on ‘truth’.

I have asked you (Mr Yapa mainly) whether you would be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?

Still waiting for your comments on that …

Chula said,

May 8, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

@Sujewa:
From your responses, it seems to me that you think I have the onus to prove to you that karma, rebirth and nirvana can be demonstrated in the real world. I was trying to point out the Buddha taught that these things are verifiable through practice. It also seems that you haven’t read the links I’ve included in the posts since your arguments don’t reflect that fact. I’ll respond to your posts but if it seems that you’re not really reading and just having fun arguing by stating the same points without considering what I’ve mentioned, I would have to leave this “discussion”.
“Not criticizing anything, just asking how something works, from people who say they are certain that something works a certain way & that they can show that it works that way.”
I never claim that this works a certain way and I can prove it to you. Even the Buddha couldn’t make people believe. Are you serious? I think you are basing your arguments from people who have very little idea about the teachings and assuming that all Buddhists share their absurdity.
“How many practitioners have directly realized nirvana through the methods prescribed by the Buddha? 100? 10,000? 1 million? If none that you know of have attained nirvana, then why not? & or if some have (or say they have) can they show you that they were able to do so using methods described in Buddhism? Is the system/the method faulty? Or is nirvana, instead of being an achievement that a human being is capable of accomplishing, more of a symbol – an idea to get people to follow a certain way of looking at the world & living in the world?”
This is a stupid question because realizing nirvāna is not like getting some certificate in that unless one is wise enough to see the difference between a wise person and one who is not, there is no way to know for certain the attainments of another. This is why I quoted the discourse of the simile of the elephant footprint simile – obviously it looks like you haven’t read it but just rehashed your tired views. The Buddha specifically mentions that until you reach nirvana, there is an element of conviction. So he never claims that you can do some sort of statistical analysis on Arahants – why do you think that would be possible in the case in the first place? It’s almost like you’re saying since it’s not falsifiable it must be false. That just makes no sense. And about people I know, I have read of a monk in Thailand who is considered an Arahant (I do too), and I’ve met monks who I believe have attained different stages of the path. From their practice and whatever progress I’ve made in mine, it’s clear to me the step-by-step path laid out by the Buddha does bring about results. Now is that proof? It’s proof to me, but not for you. If you want proof, you have practice.
“I assume Einstein’s theory of relativity makes sense to physicists, or some physicists. And, as far as I know (perhaps Heshan can add some thoughts re: this) theory of relativity has been demonstrated to be true using experiments & examples.”
And the path of the Buddha’s teachings can be verified by practice. The difference is it’s not quantifiable or falsifiable through scientific means.
“I see no difference between blind faith in a creator, & blind faith in the mechanisms that make Buddhism work as a religion – primarily karma, & related to that rebirth, & then nirvana – as the way out of the karma based rebirth cycle. Both the creator god & the existence of karma are fantastic & speculative religious ideas. If someone wanted to point to something that they believe proves the existence of a creator god, i am sure they can point to many complex & little understood phenomenon (as you did when you pointed to rebirth in support of ideas in Buddhism) – however, that would not be proof for the existence of a creator god (for me, that would require an actual meeting with the god & then testing the god out to see if he/she/it is in fact the creator of the worlds, so, basically, my barrier for accepting the creator god idea being real is pretty much the same as the barrier i have for accepting karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana as true/real).”
I’m not sure if you know but in the practice there is no requirement for one completely believe rebirth and karma to its full extent as if it’s some commandment. It seems that you think this is so. Actually, considering that these ideas a plausible are enough for a person to practice. In this discourse (and please read this before you reply to my post), the Buddha talks of safeguarding the truth by separating what you know from what you believe. If someone claims that they know rebirth and karma (in terms of the next life) is true just because the Buddha said so, he/she is not following what the Buddha taught because he is categorizing something that he believes as what he knows.
“I am pretty sure that it is meaningless to say that the Dhamma is timeless in this context. Do you mean that the ideas that make up the Buddha’s teachings have lasted a long time? Well, so have many other things – including very bizarre stuff that have very little use to modern humans (such as belief in the existence of faries, etc.). Timeless does not equal real (as opposed to fabricated, imagined, speculative).”
Timeless in the sense the practice does not change with time to time.
“I have followed the path recommended by the Buddha, and, though it has many useful things, it does not (or did not for me at least) result in being able to verify karma, reincarnation or rebirth, & nirvana as being real things that exist in this world/universe & affects humans as described in Buddhism. Nor do I know of any Buddhist who has proven that they have attained direct knowledge of karma, rebirth, nirvana & can demonstrate that they in fact have achieved what they say they achieved.”
Have you attained the fourth jhāna? What is the extent of your practice. If it’s just following the five precepts and meditating daily, that’s not fully following his path. I know of such people (especially from the Thai Forest Tradition) – maybe you should consider looking outside Sri
“Thus, this discussion has come into being. We are going to try to trade a little bit of the believers’ closed arrogance & ignorance for the agnostics’ naturally humble & open not-knowing-for-certain-ness, at least that’s the plan “
Like I said you are categorizing belief with certainty which I do not claim and the Buddha would criticize (the discourse I would quote above). Just because the believers you have met have not at least read the Buddha’s teachings in full doesn’t mean all believers are what you claim them to be.
“So, in essence, practicing Buddhism or the Dharma should get the practitioner close to nirvana, right? But, since it cannot be demonstrated that nirvana is a real element of this world or this universe, how can one demonstrate “getting closer to” the promised goal – nirvana? Thus, Buddhism does not work like guitar lessons – in guitar lessons the student can test him/her self (via using recordings at various points in time, etc.) to determine if he/she is learning anything.”
You can for sure test for oneself that one is getting closer to the goal. For example, before I practiced sincerely, I had comparatively very little control over my mind. Now I have more control over my actions, calm, stability and a source of happiness (through meditation) that is much more dependable than what is available in the outside world. I can verify that I am making progress by comparing my state with the Buddha’s step-by-step teachings to see what I should focus on next. There is no question of being able to verify progress for oneself.
“But the core goal, or the main goal, is not meditation proficiency. The Buddha is not famous for being a meditation teacher only/the key offer from Buddhism has not been just meditation – but an escape from a never ending round of birth & death & rebirth that the Buddhists say their path can liberate one from.”
Meditation is a central aspect of the path. I think you fail to see it’s a step-by-step path. It’s not like it’s a 10-day course where at the end you’re guaranteed nirvana. It’s more like a life’s work.
“Tell us then, how far have you gone along the path & what proof have you discovered that tells you that you are closer to nirvana than, let’s say, 10 years ago?”
Check my answer above.
“The very same thing as blind faith, though expressed differently. Both the priests of Christianity and the monks of Buddhism are asking you to belive that Christ and Buddha are who the priests/monks say they are & that the path, the religions, will take you closer to the goals reportedly demonstrated as achieveable by the two founders (or the so-called founders/inventors) of the religions.”
The Buddha does not require one to believe that before starting to practice. Please read the discourse (Canki Sutta), that I have linked. It’s not you’re either with me or not. There is room for not knowing and being honest.

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

Dear All/Specially for BalangodaMan;

Can you remember I asked a single question from BalangodaMan for he tried his best not to answer it. This is that simple question.
………………………
I think you live in the USA. Now if you you talk in Sinhala to an average American citizen, why he cannot understand?
………………………………………..

I didn’t let him run away from the question and cornered him with several reminders.

Can you remember how he was stunned, startled and went his mind off with this simple question after he sat himself on his own beautiful tail? Want to see? Yes please;

http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-19/#comment-18117

Do you know why I waned to ask this simple question?

To show the limitations, pettiness of a mind and to show inability of it to tackle unfamiliar things. Three BalangodaMen ( BM, SE and SD) were emphasizing their ability to handle Buddhism, Modern Science and Philosophy or whatever it is with their “pure minds” without a fair knowledge of them. They vehemently rejected our proposals to gain a fair knowledge for smooth discussion. There stance was it was not a shortcoming from their part or hindrance to maintain the discussion. But we believed the opposite and still believe so and hope any sensible person would do so.

I told them it is difficult understand Buddhism with their “Pure Thought.” But they laughed at me as omnipotent. But now see why the “ordinary USA citizen” cannot understand when BalangodaMan talks to him in Sinhala.

This USA citizen can understand English, because he is used to it by listening, responding …etc… in English speaking society of USA. If say that in another words, he can talk English because his mind was “conditioned” with English. If his mind was conditioned in French, he can understand French. Otherwise he cannot. Same is true for Spanish. Then why do you think that, that ordinary USA citizen to whom BalangodaMan spoke in Sinhala could not understand it.

Isn’t that because his mind was not conditioned to Sinhala Language?

This means mind only can grasp or can respond only to conditioned scenarios. Isn’t my conclusion correct?

This shows that just “empty minds” cannot grasp or communicate anything. These three blind mice don’t grasp what I say, is it because their their minds are empty?

Tell me my dear friends, I don’t understand this paradox.

Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?
As three BalangodaMen?

Thanks!

Off the Cuff said,

May 8, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

“All humans pray to some degree – a desire to connect or plead or negotiate (?) with a higher power, even just acknowledge. Why do people in temples place their palms together and place it at the forehead? So Buddhists too believe in a god.”

Great Logic

Is that Agnostic Reasoning?

Just shows that you don’t have an Iota of knowledge about Buddhist Philosophy.

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

Sujewa Ekanayake;

RE: Your post of May 8, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Please gentleman, be kind enough to reprint my wordings with your own key board to show that I have said that I will be able to demonstrate to non-believers the truth/realness of karma, rebirth, nirvana.

Please do not bash a straw man. It will hurt his straw body.

Thanks! (especially for telling untruths)

yapa said,

May 8, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

Now it is BalangodaMad, not BalangodaMan!

Thanks!

Off the Cuff said,

May 8, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

Dear Yapa,

Reference your post of May 8, 2010 @ 4:34 pm.

That was Hilarious.

Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.

He has forgotten that I was writing about Real World Phenomena that is backed by the recognition given them by the WHO (UN body) and The declassified Stargate documentation of the US Govt.

The poor guy has confused “Stargate” with “Star wars”. Probably due to his self professed film making bent.

We need to have Upeksha

BalangodaMan said,

May 8, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

Mr Yapa,

TRUTH and OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR
———————————
There is no point in arguing about ‘truth’ without agreeing what we mean by ‘truth’. If we behave in a way consistent with what we say then that says something about what we say we believe in, what we believe to be ‘true’.

I have given numerous examples in the honourable-Akon-thread that we as individuals, and as society, do not appear to behave as if we believe that these items of faith (karma, rebirth, nirvana) are real things. I can re-post them here if it might help.

Separation of Religion from the State
———————————
And on the matter highlighted by SomewhatDisgusted, (ie. separation of religion from the state, which you say Mr Yapa is unnecessary) I have shown that a country cannot be run on the basis that the claims of any religion are ‘true’, giving examples in popular Buddhist belief and showing that such a proposition is untenable. As an example, we cannot practice the middle path in a competitive society, in any capitalist society, and we have a cricket team which has to perform at the extreme end of excellence to beat the coconuts out of the opposition. Advertising cannot be lawful, the primary aim of which is to stimulate desire (craving) – at best it would be unfair on those struggling with curbing their weaknesses. Then there are bizarre absurdities in relation to the state recognition of rebirth. It seems like religious concepts work only in the confines of personal belief, in church sermons and temples, mosques – not in the law of the land (unless there are specific elements in it by design – as in Islam which is a system of law).

There is a good case, I think, for redesigning Buddhism from the ground up. Clearly separating philosophy from the dogma. Identifying what the ethical principles are and relating these to generally accepted ethical principles of the modern world (like re. racism, prejudice, how we treat minorities). Making Buddhism A PART of the knowledge and training and understanding we should have, rather than Buddhism being the only and last word on everything there is to know about the meaning of life.

(the last word on everything there is to know … is where Mr Yapa confuses Buddhism with Islam. Mr Yapa I respectfully refer you to the Kalama Sutra)

ordinary lankan said,

May 8, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

IT IS EASY TO ARGUE, EASY TO FIGHT AND EASY TO GO TO WAR.

THE CHALLENGE IS TO CONVERSE – TO SEEK TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER – TO RESPECT DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW – BECAUSE WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT

RELIGION TO ME IS ABOUT THIS NOBLE EFFORT – ANYTHING THAT HELPS EACH OTHER TO BE MORE WISE, MORE COMPASSIONATE – ANYTHING THAT HELPS IN THIS DIRECTION IS BUDDHISM TO ME

THE PERSON TO WHOM YOU ARE TALKING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING …. UNTIL WE REALIZE THIS WE WILL NOT HAVE A DECENT DISCUSSION – JUST A SHOUTING MATCH

PLEASE BE HAPPY

BalangodaMan said,

May 8, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

OTC,

Karma and intent
——————-
To harbour the notion that ‘good things happen to people who do good things’ AS A RULE and vice versa is rather naive, I’m sorry to say.

It is not how the world works. There is not an observable mechanism that does so (sadly) and our empirical observations do not hold that to be true (sadly), though it is true that there is such a thing as reciprocal altruism.

We know of many cases where bad people have prospered or escaped. Hitler is one, he never paid for his sins (except he may have been reborn as the little boy next door, and he can’t see why he is being punished for Hitler’s sins as he has no connection with the Fuhrer, but you’re not talking about transmigration of sin). Many cases in politics, business, you name it. Similarly, there are many good people doing good work having a dreadful time. Last week I was reading about a well known writer who gave away all his wealth, having discovered Eastern philosophy, and ended up miserable, outcast (as he was now poor) and committed suicide.

So OTC, your thinking that ‘karma works in this life’ as an observable reality needs further scrutiny.

(if you mean ‘holding your finger in the fire and it hurts’ then that is obvious and direct. you’re talking in the wider sense I believe, as in ‘do something good and you are assured a good return by some remote paranormal mechanism’)

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

OTC,

RE:

“Reference your post of May 8, 2010 @ 4:34 pm.

That was Hilarious.

Sujewa’s response was either a cunning attempt at escaping the thrust of my argument, a Hudini Act or just plain ignorance.”

Since you are avoiding the question posed by the article, I assume that you agree that karma, reincarnation, nirvana cannot be proven as true to a non-beliver. Sounds good – & keep that in mind the next time you try to talk about Buddhism as an absolute truth, the undisputed/universal truth, etc.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 8, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

Yapa,

RE:

“This USA citizen can understand English, because he is used to it by listening, responding …etc… in English speaking society of USA. If say that in another words, he can talk English because his mind was “conditioned” with English. If his mind was conditioned in French, he can understand French. Otherwise he cannot. Same is true for Spanish. Then why do you think that, that ordinary USA citizen to whom BalangodaMan spoke in Sinhala could not understand it.

Isn’t that because his mind was not conditioned to Sinhala Language?

This means mind only can grasp or can respond only to conditioned scenarios. Isn’t my conclusion correct?”

Incorrect. Let’s clarify – first, many people are able to speak both Sinhala & English, & are able to think using both languages – switching from one to the other at will. So, both English & Sinhala are similar kinds of things – languages, things that use words (sounds made by the human mouth, or symbols/characters written down) – which are essentially a set of symbols that correspond to things that exist in the outside world or in the mind – so, the two items – Sinhala & English are not very different as types of things go, with a little bit of guidance, a language dictionary, etc., the speaker of one language can begin to understand a speaker of another language.

Mistaking faith for fact is an entirely different kind of thing. There are common things that exist in this world – things that are observable by generally all & those things are filed under facts – things that actually exist. Then there are imagined things – such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana, gods, hells, heavens, etc. – that are used to influence people so that they may behave in one way or another (in a way that the influencer – the teacher or a supporter of a religion for example – finds useful). So, belief that an imagined thing may be real is something that many people like to do – because it makes them feel better about themselves, however, when that approach comes into conflict with actual things that exist in the world, things that can be verified by non-belivers & belivers alike, then we are forced to separate private religious practices with secular life – life accessible to all, not just believers.

Anyway, I am using very simple methods (words, sentences) here to try to break this difference between imagined & real down to you in a way that you may be able to follow Yapa. Let me know if this is still not clear, will see if I can find an even easier to understand set of words so that you may be able to grasp this (apparently very difficult for you to understand for some reason) difference that exists between religious “truths” (really a plesant way of saying religious fiction, most likely) & actual truths (actual things that exist in this world/universe).

Be back with more soon. Including more Yapa quotes (one was posted a few comments up) stating how you believe (or believed? perhaps we have forced you to move on from your indefensible position on this matter) that karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proved as real.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 9, 2010 @ 2:39 am

Hi Everyone,

I just went through the entire Akon & Buddhism discussion & pulled out many of Yapa’s quotes that relate to the discussion continued with this article. Read through below, there is some amusing material, but, re: the current discussion, Yapa generally makes the following claim: that Buddhism is closer to modern science & philosophy than any other religion & that Buddhism contains/or is absolute truth. When pressed to show how this is so, Yapa cuts & pastes a lot of articles & stories instead of directly laying out his understanding that all of Buddhism, or at least karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real items/real things that exist in this world & affect people. An amusing quote by SomewhatD re: a crane & gold & frogs have been thrown in to make the lengthy process of following Yapa’s thinking a little bit more enjoyable. It is primarily the ideas & statements contained in Yapa quotes below (& the full comments they are pulled from, which you can go & read following the links) & the support these ideas received (actively or passively) from other believers that encouraged me to create this new discussion where the believers are challenged to demonstrate their deeply held belief that Buddhism is something more than a religion with speculative items, & is closer to or is the absolute truth re: the universe/existence & should not be separated from the State in SL. Read on, it will take a while:

::

The Quotable Yapa

(quotes related to agnostics vs. believers/k/r/n proof article)

::

Yapa on people who disagree with his views:

“These are not more than modern parrots who do not know anything more than what they were taught. They are repeatedly uttering what they were taught by their masters. No, they are just tape records or CD’s which play when their masters push their buttons.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16173

::

Yapa’s categorization of anyone who says anything that might be interperted as criticism of Buddhism – “anti-buddhists”, & his recommendation on how Buddhists should deal with such “anti-Buddhists”:

“Most of the anti- Buddhists want us to be tolerant for any bloody thing, to be in meditation until we are massacred, try to achieve Nirvana until they come and put their shit on our door steps. This is the kind of Buddhists they want.

Anti-Buddhists want Buddhist to behave the way they (anti-Buddhists) want. Please preach the people of your category:anti-Buddhists. We very well know how to react and behave according to the situation. (You must have heard of Contingency Theory)

(Above is a very crude and very popular argument among not much educated commons. People who have no creativity have to copy such arguments. Shame!)”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16257

::

Yapa on what kinds of questions are permitted in Buddhism:

“If somebody says that Buddhism allows to asks any amount or any sort of questions, it is not true. The purpose of Buddhism is not to answer unending questions. It is true that Lord Buddha has encouraged and praised asking questions in some cases, but there are instances where Buddha has discouraged it and advised not to ask some sort of questions too. If the questions are helpful for the liberation of somebody, the Buddha allowed them to be asked. Questions fruitful in this line were encouraged and futile questions were discouraged. Further, the Buddha knew that he would not live forever and therefore taught the people the way to find answers to the questions by themselves, through his doctrine. If somebody has some discipline obtained through Dhamma, he will only have proper questions but not weird questions to ask. Most basic questions of the sort asked in this forum are self answerable with a basic discipline of Buddhism.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16721

So, a very loose guideline on what Yapa considers a proper question to ask from Buddhists vs. what he considers to be an improper question. Sounds to me like he is saying don’t ask any questions that Buddhists/Buddhism is uncomfortable with answering.

A secular, open society, however, tolerates all kinds of questions, even ones that are uncomfortable to deal with.

::

Yapa on Buddhism and science:

“If somebody who is conversant in worldly matters like an expert in Mathematics, Political Science, Psychology or any other discipline thinks he is capable of easily pin pointing errors in in Buddhist Doctrine, he is miserably misled. There are a few subject that is so consistent and non contradictory like Buddhism. Tripitaka that contains the core of Buddhism in writing is about 25 times as big as the Holy Bible is unbelievably consistent and non contradicting. Classifications and explanations given in the Abhi-Dhamma is much more profound and subtler than in modern Science.

But the people who has no at all exposure to “Science” try to disgrace Buddhism, by citing which they think as Science. Most of these people have no an iota of knowledge of Science or modern knowledge, but try to show off as Pundits showing their bottom line as Science. How can somebody who has not learned Science in a formal way acquire the whole quantum of modern knowledge of Science and cite them to contradict a prestige body of knowledge like Buddhism ? Modern Science is something like the ocean and non can say Buddhism is smaller.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16724

::

Yapa finally getting around to articulating his position on whether karma, nirvana , etc. are true/real (this is just one take of his on this matter, other, contradictory takes will follow):

“Really karma and reincarnation are not “scientifically true”, but in real sense it does not imply they are “faiths”.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16846

So, karma & reincarnation are not scientifically true and they are also not faith based items, let’s see where this goes.

::

Yapa on truth:

“Most of the things people think as true are only “conventions” and “agreements”, and there is no truths in a deeper sense.”

For the full comment, & to see ones around it, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16850

::

Yapa on the subtle but important differences between Buddhist faith in unprovable matters & the less important faith that exists in other religions, also, the true intentions, as divined by Yapa, of an agnostic commenter:

“Please note that I have never expect others to accept karma/rebirth/nirvana as ‘true’. What I was objecting from the very beginning is his arbitrary labeling them as faith and equating them with the concept of God which is easily disprovable. karma/rebirth/nirvana have never been disproved.

He later accepted equating them to God as wrong but kept on labeling them as faith, deft and dumb to my repeated facts and examples.

Further, he meant a negative aspect by the word faith. If you go through the discussion you will realize it. He meant to give a negative impact to Buddhism by labeling so. That is why I vehemently opposed him. He meant business.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16860

::

Yapa on the superiority of Buddhist concepts:

“Creator god concept is is disprovable, but karma, reincarnation never been disproved. On this basis my “faith” ( I don’t accept it as faith, but as Akarawathi Shadda) is superior and SomewhatDisgusted too accepted it in the discussion)
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/25/the-transformation-of-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-8/#comment-11248

On the other hand, why should anybody hold the popular and attractive (blunt) theory that all faiths are equal? There is no apparent reason to consider so?

I have clearly shown the difference between Akarawathi Shadda and faith during the discussion. These are entirely two different concepts, but he took the advantage of the lack of the awareness of the readers on these concepts.

Do you want to know where SomewhatDisgusted accepted Buddhist concepts as superior to the concept of creator god. Please ask him, if he is honest he will show you. Otherwise tell me I will show you. Will you still think is an objective person. Wait and see you will see the ears of of an another animal coming out of the lion’s skin.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16862

::

Here is Yapa quoting science/at least one scientist as support for his position regarding faith based elements in Buddhism:

“Dear BalangodaMan;

You say;
“The question our good friend SomewhatDisgusted is asking is – do you accept it as FACT? or do you accept it as FAITH?”

If you are satisfied or if you gain something by my accept thing things superficially I will accept so. But my acceptance does not change the way realities are existing.

In this case you have taken only alternative to “Faith” as “Fact”, but is it really so? Isn’t there any possibility for any other alternative? For me “Akarawathi Araddha which is different from both of them is an alternative.

This is the problem of thinking based on two valued logic or Aristotelian Logic. I have dealt with these things in detail in the previous discussion.

Aristotelian logic is a middle excluded two ended logic. It can have only two alternatives. Newtonian science stuck in this, but modern science achieved major victories by coming out of this Aristotelian trap and opting to four valued logic,which had been a tradition in Sri Lanka due to the philosophy of Buddhism. I have dealt about four valued logic too in the previous discussion, with regard to the same issue and now I am repeating it. You may refer “Nagarjuna” Buddhist philosopher and Buddhist Logic in this regard. Karma, rebirth and Nirvana cannot be dealt with Newtonian logic just as it cannot deal most of the modern issues in Science. If you analyze Quantum Physics with Aristotelian logic just as you did for karma, rebirth or nirvana you will get the same results,and you will name it also as a fact. This is a case of inability of the methodology to deal the subject matter. The methodology is too weak to deal this subject matter. That is the problem here. Please please try to understand this scenario.

That is why the American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer said
“ If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ‘no.’ The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man’s self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science.”

To see the discussion around this comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16880

::

Here’s Yapa expressing some full on religious believes, items that cannot be proven as true to a non-believer:

“Dhamma is not something relative that depends on a person like perception. Fhamma [Dhamma?] means as it is. I might not believe in the case you mentioned, but it has no effect on Dhamma. Dhamma is not some thing made by anybody. It is not even a creation of the Buddha. Even if the Buddha is not there Dhamma exists. karma/rebirth/nirvana are some Dhamma and I have no power to change them by having my birth in different places.”

For the full quote & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926

::

Yapa on those who insist that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are faith based items:

“The main proposition of Somewhat Disgusted to me is that he wants me to blatantly accept karma/rebirth/nirvana under the blanket word of “FAITH”, Which I never accepted and will never accepted with good reasons, which I repeatedly offered to him but he turned is blind eye and deft eat for his pseudo intellectual pride and for the cheap personal advantages.

This popular, attractive,emotionally comfortable and highly marketable gross notion seems to impressed some of the people of the forum. But this is an “at the glance conclusion”. Really without disproving many of the facts presented by many people including me and others in this forum and in the forums discussed all over the world, one cannot jump over them and claim such a blanket conclusion about some very deep, wide, respected and significant concepts that have been the subject matters of the intellectual discussions all over the world for thousands of years. Such an effort of anybody would end up with the person becoming a one of the funniest clowns. That is why I have been telling ” Ignorant is the bravest”.

These things have been repeatedly mentioned by many people including me several times in the previous discussions to these people who are armed with blunt and blanket methodologies to analyze and explain any bloody thing, but went unnoticed to the blind and prejudiced eyes and minds of of these irresponsible, cynical intellectual idiots who want to break Ruwanmeli Seya to sell its bricks to earn some pocket money.”

For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16926

::

Yapa on how those who disagree with the exact value of Buddhism to Sri Lanka are “pigs”/intellectual idiots:

“Buddhism for Sri Lanka is not just a religion. It has been the way of life or life itself of the people of this country once it became a “united nation”,. with the unification of the Naga, Yaksa and immigrant tribes by accepting Buddhism as their common religion. It was Buddhism that built this nation, later to become a prompt and proud civilization with the Philosophy, vision and the guide lines of the doctrine of the great personality of Buddha.
It was Buddhism that provided and shaped the Economic model of this country with the symbol of Tank (Wewa) which is a non violent mode of earning the living based on enmity to all beings, not confining it to the humans only. It provided and shaped appropriate technology the country needed, both in material life and spiritual life of its people. They were able to build Tanks, Housing, protective walls and canals for the security of the country and dagabas with this appropriate technology. It provides, shaped and nourished our Art and Literature in a unique way. It provided our moral system, habits, rituals, values, spirituality etc..and the whole culture. Above all It provided us with an unparalleled way of thinking based on free thinking without barriers.

But unfortunate thing is pigs eat even their own legs. Gajamuthu is not value to them. Tooth Relic of Kandy is another a tooth to these cynics. Material thinking made these intellectual idiots to become so. What they can see is material consumables and blind to the underline non material realities. These people have only the material part in them, nothing else.”

For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16946

::

Yapa on how belief in karma, reincarnation, nirvana requires less blind faith than belief in God:

“Now that SomewhatDisgusted has come to “the point” as I mentioned in my post of April 9, 2010 @ 12:44 pm, I will clarify my argument about karma and reincarnation whether it is faith or not for the clarity of all including SomewhatDisgusted for them to answer to the point. (I did the same thing in the previous discussion too but SomewhatDisgusted turned his authoritative blind eye to it.)

Following are our beliefs
1. Belief on “Creator God”
2. Belief on karma and reincarnation
3. Belief on Subjects such as Social Sciences and Natural Science

All these are beliefs in the strict sense that contents of them cannot be proved.
Now that they are all beliefs are the level or degree of credibility of them are the same?

(i).I think the credibility level/degree of the 3rd of the above is high (within the human perception) and hence normally people do not call these subjects as faith.

(ii). Now the credibility level of the second:Belief on karma and reincarnation, is lesser compared to to the 3rd above. Further these “concepts” have never been disproved.

(iii). Credibility level of 1st above is very minimal or none as the concept of creator god is disprovable.

(please read:http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/25/the-transformation-of-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/comment-page-8/#comment-11248)

But this credibility level of belief is popularly known as “FAITH”.

Now see the credibility levels when organized in a descending order.
3rd > 2nd >1st (= FAITH)

Now mathematically (or logically), If 2nd >1st (= FAITH), 2nd is not equal to 1st.

That is [ Belief on karma and reincarnation] is not equal to [Belief on "Creator God"(=FAITH)].
Therefore [ Belief on karma and reincarnation] is not equal to [FAITH]

That is why karma and reincarnation should not be taken as FAITH.

That is why I and Buddhists call it as “AKARAWATHI SRADDHA”, which is a higher level of credibilty of belief than FAITH.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16964

::

Here’s Yapa elevating his religious beliefs over observable facts:

“Now coming back to the central issue of Two Valued Logic and Four Valued Logic, Two Valued Logic does not contradict with Newtonian system of Knowledge, reason being the Newtonian system was really built on the base of Two Valued Logic. But Two Valued Logic and the Science based on it that is Newtonian Science CONTRADICTS in Modern System of Scientific Knowledge,(especially based on Four Valued Logic) as shown above. But they really should not be taken as contradictions as they take place in two different systems. Same way Knowledge generated in the Four Valued System seems to be contradicting in the eyes of Two Valued System, but they should not be taken as CONTRADICTIONS.

Reality is Knowledge what we are fighting for are really not truths. THEY ARE JUST CONVENTIONAL TRUTHS OR RELATIVE TRUTHS [AS MENTIONED IN BUDDHISM. (SAMMUTHI SATYA)] BASE ON A SE OF AXIOMS. EACH KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM HAS DIFFERENT AXIOMS, STILL THE TRUTHS GENERATED ARE ONLY DIFFERENT RELATIVE TRUTHS.RALLY, THE KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BASED ON HUMAN PERCEPTION CANNOT PERCEIVE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS OR THE REALTY. IN BUDDHISM ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS KNOWN AS PARAMARTHA SATHYAYA AND THE THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS ABSOLUTE TRUTH/KNOWLEDGE AND THIS WAT Y OR THE PATH IS KNOWN AS “NOBLE EIGHT FOLD PATH”.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17015

::

Yapa states that he does not think that Buddhism believes that it can significantly improve the world:

(first, my – SE – comment that gives context to Yapa’s comment to follow)
“Unfortunately, after several hundred to a couple of thousand or more years of existing & working on Earth, all the major religions have failed to fully save the world/humanity (from poverty, war, etc.). So, most likely that – making the Earth a good place to live for all humans – will happen through a combination of religious & secular work/approach.”
[comment posted by me]

Yapa’s response:

“This has never been the motto of Buddhism and also it doesn’t believe it is a possibility.”

For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17076

::

Yapa states that Buddhism may not have been invented by a human:

“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

[Religions, sets of ideas & approaches to living invented by humans] – [my statement]

Not all religions, Buddhism is an exception. [Yapa's response]”

For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17173

::

Yapa on the mysterious nature of Buddhist philosophy/views/etc:

“As I have said some time ago, Buddhism is based on FOUR VALUED LOGIC + SOMETHING.”

Go here to see this comment: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17341

::

Yapa on how nothing else but an aspect of a religion can prove the truthfulness of the same religion:

“Now I hope that I have proved that Buddhism cannot be understood through “Rationality’. It needs a different methodology. The Buddha has very well stated and explained the path to achieve its ultimate goal, that is ” NOBLE EIGHT FOLD PATH”. Those who want to realize/ experience Buddhism, may follow its prescribed paths, and nothing else.”
For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17351

::

Yapa on coming up with a new method to make Buddhism easy-to-understand for rationalists (items placed in bold my me are very relevant to this new article):

“I honestly believe I did something important very clearly this time, which I have been dreaming for a long time. Can you remember, I offered to you that I would try to formulate a rational method to convince you about reincarnation and karma, in the previous discussion sometime back? I think that is also not impossible and I would try. These things especially will help westerners to understand Buddhist Philosophy who are more used to rationality to understand things.”

For the full comment & context, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17370

::

Yapa on the intergalactic popularity of Buddhism:

“Buddhism is not confined to the followers on earth!”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17487

::

Yapa on coming up with a system to explain karma, reincarnation, nirvana to non-belivers (in bold since this quote is very relevant to this article):

“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538
::

Yapa admits that Buddhism requires at least a little bit of faith:

“Can you remember I was continuously talking about “AKARAWATHI SRADDHA”. Really,”AKARAWATHI ARADDHA” is nothing but this “initial willingness”. I think you will accept that you will never be able to learn/realize anything without this initial willingness. How do you begin anything? Buddhism demands it a prerequisite, to realize Dhamma, and demands nothing even an ounce more.”

Full quote & context here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17543

::

Yapa on observing that the dead remain dead is not reasonable (i think):

“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake and All;

“When someone dies they are, most likely, just dead – end of story – no afterlives, heavens, hells, etc.” [my/SE statement]

I think if we don’t go by reasonable opinions/fact based opinions, our discussion either will not end or will end with chaos. Mere opinion has no value or credibility. [Yapa's response]”

::

Yapa saying, basically, what the agnostics are saying – that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are matters of faith, not real things that exist in this world/not things that can be verified to be true by non-believers:

“I have invalidated your main (only?) tool: Rationality, in the contexts of knowledge seeking/mystery solving in the modern era. You have been stripped.Establish your pride/fame again if possible. I have established that transcendental things such as karma/reincarnation/nirvana cannot be realized through rationality, and hence they are not within the reach of you and you have no capacity to prove or disprove or at least to find a clue of it. this is the reason for your ignorance of them, not that they are not true/realities. Your tool is a megalithic tool to fight our modern army.I have very well established it . I challenge you to show if I am wrong and establish your pride again. Otherwise you have no say in this forum, as your “megalithic tool” has been broken into pieces.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17607

::

Yapa predicting the end of the world as we know it (and i think he is saying that Buddhism has something do with it/predicted it, or something):

“You are talking about the definitions in Wickipedia. All these definitions have been given before the modern era of Science. See most of the definitions in Science, given in any dictionary have now been out dated after the Modern Science. Modern knowledge system is a total “paradigm shift “and almost all the concepts/definitions soon will have to be re-defined. People in the Social Sciences, Humanities has no even a clue about this sea change. They are just crabs in a boiling pot. Await your extinction if you don’t crawl out of that “olden day clay pot”. Soon all of your books have to be re-written. What you have learned have been fully out dated. You will have to find new Political theories based on modern concepts developed after the modern era. You will soon see faith based western political theories such as Liberalism, will have to be thrown into dust bins. All the Social Sciences will have to be re defined soon. I think all those things will happen during our life time. Already the heat waves of modern science have been felt in the field of Technology. All the subject areas will have to undergo this sea change. When that happens keep in mind the dictionary you are quoting “dogmas” will have no place even in the dust bin as all the subjects you consider so valuable will fill the dustbins not allowing space to any thing else. Keep in mind your dictionary is “doomed”.The cycle of “Asta Loka Dharma” is spinning even though you have no knowledge of it. You cannot stop turning it. Quickly get out of the pot.

(Take it serious. I am not joking or telling a fairy tale. Ask somebody who has a knowledge in Modern Science. Otherwise search the web, if you don’t have the backward attitude “I cannot understand them”. I have given you a link. Here it is again, I am giving it in compassion to you. It is a life line for you, you outdated lot.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/)”

For the full comment, go here:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17611

::

Yapa expresses his hatred of agnostics:

“Agnosticism is nothing but another ugly face of consummation [consumerism]. They are not satisfied just eating material consumables. Now these greedy pigs want to eat even sacred religions cutting them into pieces with their dirty folks and spoons.”

Full comment & context here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17640

::

Here Yapa expresses his belief that the agnostics are “ignorant agents of capitalism”, etc:

“Dear All;

These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.

Oh! God!, Please forgive these ignorant men(women????) as they don’t know what they are doing.

Thanks!”

::

Yapa hinting that he may produce a scientific paper on proving karma, reincarnation, nirvana if he was confident that the agnostics could understand it:

“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

“By the way, how is that scientific poof paper for karma, reincarnation, nirvana coming?”
………..” [a question posed by me]

[the following is Yapa's response]
When you guys don’t understand (or pretending to be so) what I say in plain language and do not reply a single post of mine critically, what is the use even if I produce such a paper?
I give a promise. Please critically analyze my responses I have posted. If you show your ability understand them I will definitely undertake to produce the paper you are so eagerly demanding. I warn that the paper definitely would be harder than what I have already produced. Therefore,please show your capability to understand. (Either you can make “Science Expert General” of your camp answer them)

I ALWAYS KEEP MY PROMISES.

Thanks! [above is Yapa's response]

::

Yapa on why Buddhism is superior to other religions & why Sri Lankans must fight to protect it, and at the same time proposes that blind faith in Buddhism is reasonable:
“Now you can see all other three religions except the Buddhism are based on faith of a Creator God, which is easily disproved by many simple methods. That means if we objectively consider, all three religions mentioned above can be rejected as myths. In the event of this, if we keep aside the minor religions away the Buddhism is the only religion one can have some faith on, even without going in to the details of it. In the event one can reasonably understand to what extent a person with sound knowledge of Buddhism can believe Buddhism. Same way anybody can more reasonably understand what a belief and respect must be having with a group of people living in Buddhism for about 2500 years. It is a treasure for them. Anybody can understand why anybody would fight to protect his treasure. Those who don’t have a treasure, have no reason to fear or fight.

We must protect our treasure for the future generations and for the benefit of the whole world. It is our inalienable duty. There is no parallel religion.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17959

::

Here Yapa seems to express his belief that “modern science” can explain “unresolved mysteries of the world” (i assume mysteries such as karma, etc.):

“I have been telling from the very beginning that Newtonian Science is outdated and the thinking based on it cannot be used to resolved the “unresolved mysteries” of the world, and its place now has taken by the Modern Science. I have explained this in many ways.”

For the rest of the comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17982

::

Here Yapa state’s that he believes that Buddhism offers absolute truth about the universe, existence, etc:

Dear All;

Considering the Discussion so far held it can be easily arrived at following provisional conclusions.

A possibility of achieving (absolute) reality/truth seems to confine to the following subject areas found in the present. (Possibilities of other subject areas can be easily disproved.)

1. Buddhist Philosophy (Buddhism)
2. Modern Science
3. Philosophy

All other subject areas are based on human desires to achieve something and only human based on human centered knowledge that is nothing to do with Universal reality/truth. These tings I have shown in many ways and proved that humans’ main tool of knowledge: Rationality is incapable of achieving reality. Further, Theorem of Kurt Gödel found in Modern Science reiterated my position. (Heshan has raised a doubt about the universal validity of Theorem of Kurt Gödel; I will deal this matter separately)
Philosophy in its definition is dedicated to find reality/truth and has produced some positive result towards this end.
Modern Science has contributed immensely in this respect, especially irradiating popular opinions /dogmas that had been created by Newtonian Science.
When contemplating deep in to Buddhist Philosophy, one can easily see that it deals with finding absolute truth/reality.
In my view, Philosophy and Modern Science are in the way towards achieving this end through two different paths and the Buddhism has achieved this end 2500 years ago through its “fuzzy Logic”, which only now Modern Science has started to touch. In my view, if Modern Science and Philosophy some day achieve their pinnacle, they will end up their journey with Buddhism.

In view of above, it is really sensible somebody searching absolute reality/truth to inclined towards Buddhism or else at least towards Modern Science or Philosophy. Any other effort is no more fruitful than expecting an intelligent child from a barren woman. May all your attention be drawn into this reality.”

See the comment here:
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18033

So, to me, it appears that Yapa is claiming 1) Buddhism expresses the absolute truth about the universe 2500 years ago & continues to do so, & 2) that modern science is compatible with this universal truth that Buddhism is expressing.

Thus, we ask Yapa to show how modern science supports the existence of core items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana in Buddhism – how those items are an actual part of this universe as opposed to being speculative elements in an ancient religion. And, as we have seen from all of Yapa’s comments above & below, no such proof is given by Yapa or any other believer – their main argument seems to be that some items in Buddhism sound similar to some items in modern/quantum sciences & thus Buddhism must be true/has the absolute truth.

::

Here Yapa argues that even though God based religions should be separated from government, Buddhism should not be (in effect, perhaps I assume Yapa believes that Buddhism is the absolute truth, not myth/faith based as the other world religions are, even though Buddhism is clearly as much a religion with speculative elements as the other religions):

“Now can you remember you agreed in a previous discussion that God based religions in Europe were constant battle with state for supremacy. Ultimately state won over the church and determined to keep aside the threat for ever. This one of the reasons why states decided to separate religion from politics in the west. Another reason is that with the revival of Science, the beliefs in such religions seemed to be contradictory. Now actually we know that such religions are disproved and considered as myths.
It is very correct myth to be separated from Politics, Not only from Politics but from any thing else too. It is a great service to the whole man kind to liberate them from myth.
How can you as a parrot say that just because myth is separated from Politics that truth also should be separated from Politics. Such things can be said only by brainless imitators who dance to the tunes of their western masters for a morsel of food.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18066

::

Here Yapa finally admits that not even modern science can show that karma, reincarnation, nirvana are real:

“There is no use of engage in endless discussion on karma/reincarnation/nirvana which are proven even with modern science to be unachievable (The Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel).”

Read the full comment here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18069

However, he went on to ignore his own findings a little later on continued to act out of his belief that the existence of those items in Buddhism, & the Buddhist world view in general, are undisputed truths/absolute truths (at least that’s what i gathered from his comments to follow)

::

And now, for a little bit of amusement, SomewhatDisgusted responds to a story told by Yapa:

“Somehow you have an uncanny ability to show others, even through your little parables, that kamma/rebirth/nirvana are just way off the mark. That crane in your parable asked the only pertinent question: where the heck are the crabs? I mean, what good is a gold pond to a crane? The story behind Buddhism is the same isn’t it? You describe all these Nirvanas, and Kammas and Rebirths and Suffering but what good are these if they don’t exist and people prefer to be reborn anyway?”

Get the full story here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18258

::

Back to “serious” work – here Yapa equates non-believers who ask difficult questions from Buddhism to animals:

“Do you think The Buddha preached his doctrines keeping in his mind that a fool after 2500 years would ask foolish questions and as answers to them? Really, NO. Buddhism has no answers to your questions. People corrupted with consumerism think that even Buddhism should be made to cater for their needs. There is no value for these people if it is not consumable. Animals cannot think beyond this limit. That is the difference between animals and humans. Humans have the capability to think against their likings when necessary. The people who are corrupted with consumerism are not different from animals.”

Fro the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18260

::

Any questions? Let me know.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 9, 2010 @ 3:06 am

OTC,

RE:

“If you cannot rise to that challenge then your tool is too puny to dissect Buddhism. Period.”

So, basically, if no tool exists that can show that Buddhism is either true or false, then it is not a matter of great concern to people who are primarily concerned with true/actual things. Buddhism is a private matter – such as a hobby, etc. – just a religion – made up of many things including speculative/most likely non-existent items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana. Thus, Buddhism cannot be demonstrated to be an absolute truth. Thus, since it is mostly a made up thing (most likely), and the processes described in Buddhism have no real effect on the real world, actual people, it can be ignored, generally, by the state or by any non-beliver or a different beliver (someone who believes in something else other than Buddhism).

Anyway, let’s see if I can clarify your own self-defeating stance to you using the model of a symbolic conversation:

You say “I have an invisible car, give me $10,000 for it, and I’ll give it to you”

I say “show me your invisible car first, I don’t think it exists”

To which you say “show me that my invisible car does not exist”

To which I say “you are the one who wants the possible trade of $10K for an invisible car to be taken seriously, so, you need to prove that the invisible car does in fact exist”

To which you say “the invisible car does exist, but the methods by which we can verify its existence are not well developed enough at the moment, but, take my word for it, the invisible car is real”

Then we go ’round & ’round, repeating the same statements in different forms. Ultimately, I come to the conclusion that you do not have an invisible car & I keep my $10K, laugh, & walk off.

The invisible car is Buddism, or the karma, reincarnation, nirvana concepts that Buddhists believe are real aspects of this world.

The $10K is support for Buddhism asked by those who use Buddhism to accomplish certain objectives in this world, support requested by believers & non-belivers.

Hope you can follow the above example, if not, let me know, I’ll try to find an even simpler way to explain the absurdity of your position.

- S

yapa said,

May 9, 2010 @ 5:54 am

Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

You say;

“Or, because karma, reincarnation, nirvana are completely fictional devices.”

Are you the omnipotent + omnipresent God to give “wholesale judgments”?

Please get your brain checked.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 9, 2010 @ 6:05 am

Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

You say;

“And, in my next post, I’ll try to give some of your direct quotes where you state your belief that karma, reincarnation, nirvana can be proven through modern science, math, & other methods. Stay tuned.”

I am anxiously looking forward with 2X-.

Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 9, 2010 @ 10:22 am

Yapa,

RE:

“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

You say;

“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”

I have never said so. You are a deliberate liar. ( may be due to your utmost desperation)

Thanks!”

Here’s your quote where you expresses your belief that the agnostics are “ignorant agents of capitalism”, etc:

“Dear All;

These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners. They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.

Oh! God!, Please forgive these ignorant men(women????) as they don’t know what they are doing.

Thanks!”

I compiled & submitted 11 pages of Yapa quotes to this discussion, post has not shown up yet on the page, hopefully it will (unless, due to length, it can’t make it though, in that case I will have to post the material at my New SL Agnostics blog).

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 9, 2010 @ 11:06 am

OTC,

One last item,

RE:
“How about an answer to my Counter Challenge?
Prove that Science is an AUTHORITATIVE tool in the field of Philosophy.”

Since you are unable to follow this conversation/debate clearly for some unknown reason, let me see if I can simplify the nature of this discussion for you:

1. Believers express the notion that Buddhism is or contains absolute truths, universal truths, & are thus (my interpertation), naturally, significant for & should be of concern for all humans

2. I & other agnostics posed the challenge that Buddhism is not an absolute/universal truth, is only merely a local religion (with a lot of followers world wide), & the truths expressed in Buddhism are religious truths, not to be confused with actual truths/common truths/real things that actually exist in the world

3. The believers continue to repeat their/your position that Buddhism is something more than a faith based religion

4. So the agnostics ask for proof – show us how karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana – 3 key elements in Buddhism – are real things that exist in this world/universe & affect humans

5. Unable to do so, you evade admitting the truth of the situation by asking me to either disprove the existence of KRN or show how science is capable of proving or disproving KRN

6. At this point, I had to use the symbolic situation involving the invisible car to attempt to illustrate the pointlessness of your current position

7. Unable to grasp the fact that you in fact deeply believe in speculative items that exist in a religion & that there is no way to prove to a non-believer that those items are real & not speculative, you keep asking me to show you how science can or cannot prove Buddhism – and that’s where we are now

Hopefully you can follow all that. If not, there is no hope in attempting to make you understand that it is impossible to prove the existence of speculative items as a part of the real world, with those items affecting real people, etc. You may be too blinded by your faith & your love of speculative items in a religion & your deep desire to experience Buddhism as the ultimate & universal truth (all that, on an individual/personal level is not necessarily a bad thing, we all need ways to cope with existence, but, does become a problem when blind faith motivates the belivers to declare that what they believe are univeral & absolute truths, & that’s how you & I ended up in this conversation).

Sounds good?

I’ll leave you with a couple of quotes that may be useful for your spiritual & intellectual development:

“Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand.”
- Baruch Spinoza

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
- attributed to Seneca the Younger, Roman philosopher

(and hopefully this one you may be familiar with)

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
- attributed to the Buddha

- S

Observer said,

May 9, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

See Sujeewa, you’re a man of faith to me. Faith in what you perceive as “agnosticism”. Having faith in non believing is also a faith to me far as I am concerned and when they get organised it actually scares me much as religious folk who have deep faiths in spiritual mumbo jumbo.

Alright I won’t even go and tag my self as an agnostic if I am going to put my self in your camp. I am just going to say I am a “skeptic” and leave it there. I shall remain skeptic until the day someone convince me any of the stuff in any scriptures other than the common sense stuff that are just good advice is indeed fact or truthful.

Far as the faithful are concerned, I respect them to a degree for that they see something and believe in something I fail to see or feel. But I lose that respect when they don’t constrain that faith to their private life. Anyway I know better than to argue with religious people, including “faithful agnostics”. Belief beats reason unfairly and that’s a fact of life..

BalangodaMan, my biggest stumbling point is how can I challenged what others perceive as the absolute divine truth when I don’t know the whole truth? Sure it sounds very fishy what they say and science cannot explain it but I don’t have a solid wall to hold my back on either. Because my scripture science has holes init too. Therefore I am uncomfortable taking an absolute moral higher ground over them even though they sound like “crazier” people. Many aspects of the universe are still unexplained. As a skeptic I have a sort of understanding what I think is probably the case with limited scientific evidence. That’s all I have. Where as the Atheist believes that there is no god as an absolute truth and he/she has a foundation that matches of which the god believers and provides a framework for argument.

And wijyapala, I am glad that was humorous to you. I was born a Buddhist and I do go to the temple occasionally to keep please my grand mother. She is frail and I take pleasure in taking her to the temple. I probably will stop after she’s passed away one day as far away as possible. I just don’t have the heart to hurt her feelings and that’s probably covertly Buddhist as I get.

Oh and I have no intentions of confessing my ample sins nor seeking forgiveness or salvation. I embrace the day I can have a painless, peaceful death (maybe asking for too much) and find out for my self what really is on the other side if anything at all. I just don’t trust what the prophets have to say…

I probably should not have butt in at all, it’s just I couldn’t bare to see agnosticism taken for a ride. I always thought agnostics like my self were self confessed fence sitters but apparently not going by the demographic here. Anyway Good luck to you all in this fierce conversation I sort of admire rather fascinating all of yours convictions in this subject area. Because it’s an area I have no feeling for and never could develop any interest even when I tried.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 9, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

Dear Observer,

Not at all. You are opinion is most welcome and I quite agree with it. However, I think you’re commenting while not understanding the context and background of this thread.

It has been repeatedly acknowledged that there is no challenge from the “agnostics” or “secular rationalists” or “secular humanists” or whatever label you wish to call us, which is irrelevant, that we have *no problem whatsoever with people believing whatever*. Why? Because we don’t know either. Q1: Does that fit in with your stance on agnosticism?

The problem is not with that. Claims have been made of knowing absolute truths and that Buddhism = truth therefore the Sri Lankan state and Buddhism are inseparable. In other words, Sri Lanka no longer needs to be a secular country.

If that is the case, Q2: Is it unreasonable to request that it be demonstrated why Buddhism is an absolute truth and how the believers know this?

Also, Q3: Do you agree, as an “agnostic”, that the Sri Lankan state no longer needs to be secular and Buddhism should be made the official religion?

Q4: In any case, what do you consider to be the fair thing to do in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country?

Please let us know your stance on these 4 questions and indicate whether you consider our position unreasonable.

cheers,
/SD

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 9, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

Hi Observer,

RE: “See Sujeewa, you’re a man of faith to me. Faith in what you perceive as “agnosticism”. Having faith in non believing is also a faith to me far as I am concerned and when they get organised it actually scares me much as religious folk who have deep faiths in spiritual mumbo jumbo.”

I do believe that humans are able to work out our problems without having to rely on most likely non-existant (not active or not a part of the real world, just intellectual items that exist in religious thought) devices such as karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana, gods, hells, heavens, etc.

The ultimate goal (or what I would like to see happen on this planet) is not merely the non-believers* organizing ourselves in order to accomplish goals that we think are important (separation of religions & states, freedom of thought world wide, freedom of expression world wide, freedom of religion or freedom from religion world wide, an end to hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc.), but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.

* also, there is a difference between mere agnostics and atheists and positively motivated agnostics & atheists – by positively motivated I mean people who are interested in making things better in this world and are active in doing so via whatever methods available to them. So, a more accurate term for the kind of people I am speaking of, myslef included, would be Positive Humans (as this group also includes believers, not just agnostics). However, for this discussion with hard core/blind believers of SL Buddhism & since the Positive Human label is not yet well known, agnostics or non-believers is the most useful label for the camp that is skeptical of the grand speculative claims made by Buddhism.
So, don’t worry, most people on the planet at the moment would probably agree with your definition of agnosticism But, some of us are in the middle of building a new way to interact with this world, and agnosticism is a starting point, one aspect of that new method.

Also, the idea that humans should be able to work out our own problems without having to rely on gods or other speculative devices was probably/most likely introduced to me via SL Buddhism.

Anyway, I am totally cool with all religions – as long as they do not do harm to people, & as long as they realize that any one branch of human knowledge is, at best, only relevant to just one area of human existence, and thus religion is not all/not everything, and should not be wed to the state & forced on non-believers & people who cannot or have not chosen a religious identity & may not want to choose a religious identity. I am however very cool with secular & useful laws, etc. that may have religious origins (since religious ideas have an even earlier basic human need or desire origins or are otherwise products of human creativity).

As the world continues to deal with problems caused by organized religions, specially ones that do not tolerate dissent (more a problem in the Islamic world than in the Buddhist countries I think), I am sure more and more non-believers will become organized & active in order to save themselves & their secular/open societies (or to liberate their societies from religious oppression) from the control of just one religion or several religions.

- S

Off the Cuff said,

May 10, 2010 @ 12:37 am

Dear Sujewa,

“One of the challenges put forth by The Agnostics camp (myself, SomewhatDisgusted, BalangodaMan, with help from Heshan) to The Believers (Yapa, Wijayapala, Off The Cuff, etc.) ……… is: prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.

That Sujewa was extracted from the FIRST paragraph of your article under discussion.

“Keep talking in your nonsensical circular arguments.”

When you don’t have Facts to meet an argument try rhetoric.

Your statement applies perfectly to you, as you are struggling to even disprove my claim that the Buddha could “SEE” events Hundreds of miles removed from where he was located, using his MIND, “Remote Viewing” as it was called by the US Military’s Stargate project.

Does not Sound Good Huh?

Evidence – Similar abilities displayed by some gifted Human beings as documented by The US Governments declassified “Stargate” Documents.

Waiting to see how you negate the above with your Puny Tools of modern science or math or any other verifiable method available.

The events described by me are Facts so don’t try to confuse Stargate with the Celluloid Fiction (your Forte) of “Star Wars”, the smoke screen you tried to pull, in order to avoid the Challenge. If you are contesting that those events are not Facts, PROVE IT

The Non Believers / Agnostics can use any hard-to-understand math or science, or even just common sense – and show how the events documented in the Stargate project that Some Gifted Humans performed, could not have been performed or that it’s some Hocus Pocus perpetrated by the US intelligence services (part of the wording is copied straight off of your article).

Sounds Good, right?

Here is the chance to do your stock “Escape Artist act”. Claim that you will believe it ONLY if you experience it.

citizen said,

May 10, 2010 @ 7:16 am

@SomewhatDisgusted: I fully support your stated objectives. More than that, I think they are perhaps the most pertinent questions to be asked of the Sri Lankan society and state – not only because the emotional attachment to matters of faith will draw out the widest possible audience (as the discussion in GV has proved), but it will re-invigorate a more introspective – if not self-critical – self analysis our society from within. This is important, because analysis and criticism from outside of our society is only going to reinforce paranoia about western conspiracies to undermine the dominant faith of the land and by it’s association and implication, the state. Rather, the discourse should spring from within, led by intelligent members of the citizenry and who are knowledgeable enough to explain their views with clarity and confidence and also assured in their beliefs to the extent that they are able to treat others – especially those with different – if not opposite – views with respect.
Suffice to say that only a few participants in this discussion seem assured and comfortable in their own beliefs – so as to treat the beliefs of others with the respect they deserve. However, I hope this will be a catalyst that would encourage introspection and self-criticism in other aspects as well.

citizen said,

May 10, 2010 @ 7:31 am

Given that we are discussing matters of ‘religious’ faith, I assume no right to challenge the beliefs of another, or patronise them. I consider it my civic responsibility however to safeguard everyone’s right to their own faith – even if they are opposite to my own and regardless of whether or not others respect my right to a personal faith. Though I thoroughly enjoy having an honest, intellectual discourse on faith, I know only a handful of individuals whom I know, trust and respect well enough to consider suitable partners in such a discussion. Even though his religious views are different enough from my own as to be almost opposites, Mr Yapa sounds intelligent and engaging in the way he presents his view and I respect that. Yet I cannot help but notice that the Buddhism he describes is so very different from the Buddhism that I see Televised on Rupavahini and ITN, or promoted and practised at the Malwaththa or Asgiriya Temples… in a country where Buddhism and its power politics is based mostly on the tooth of its great sage, rather than on his teachings.

citizen said,

May 10, 2010 @ 8:47 am

I am sorry: I meant to acknowledge the positive and intelligent contribution of Chula – and NOT Mr Yapa. I feel the need to correct the record because i felt Mr Yapa – in my humble opinion – does not seem any more inteligent than to do anything more than chase his own tail.

ordinary lankan said,

May 10, 2010 @ 11:37 am

And quantity does not necessarily mean quality – another spiritual lesson.

what is the use of intelligence without peace of mind? one of the most important aspects of buddhism is metta or loving kindness. just in case that important aspect is left behind let me recite a very useful and very practical buddhist prayer – for both sides in this ‘great debate’

may all beings be happy
may their suffering cease
may their joys never cease
and whatever happens

may I retain my balance of mind knowing that all persons are the true owners of their deeds – my wishes may or may not help them – but ultimately everyone has to help themselves – this is the law – otherwise called kamma.

Grasshopper said,

May 10, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

What is the point of ~1100 comments and the gazillion or so key strokes typed away so far? Have we made any progress?

There are atheists, agnostics and believers among the diasporic & native Sri lankans and I do not know why cant people just leave it at that. As long as no group tries to shove their beliefs down someone else’s throat I don’t know what the fuss is all about.

Extra sensory perceptive stuff such as kamma, vipaka, rebirth, nibbana are yet to be proven beyond considerable doubt using any science or math and I do not know whether they ever will be. And this is not to say those stuff are real either.

But I am glad to see free thinking Sri lankans coming along. I too am an agnostic. I prefer to leave the extra sensory sutff on the back burner.

Cheers.

Chula said,

May 10, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

@BalangodaMan:

“Clearly you agree with us – that a religious belief is ‘true’ to someone who has faith or conviction in it. It is a personal position the validity of which only a believer can verify. Such a ‘truth’ is commonly referred to as ‘faith’ or a ‘conviction’.

Now, our problem is, Mr Yapa vehemently objects to the word ‘faith’ (I suggested that that might be because it is the term used in other religions like Christianity). He substituted ‘verifiable proof’ in place of ‘faith’, bringing in Quantum Physics big guns to a party already in full swing.”

The difference in the conviction (or faith/saddhā) in Buddhism is that it’s verifiable in this life with practice. It’s not the end goal. In Chrisitanity, faith is admirable and there is nothing more asked for in an individual. In the Cankisutta, which I linked before (and while no one seems to have read), the Buddha clearly distinguishes what one believes and what one knows as true. He says a practitioner should “safeguard the truth” – clearly distinguishing the two so that there is no chance to delude onself.

I didn’t read the Akon thread (and I don’t plan to), but this thread is separate so I’d like to keep it that way. I avoided that thread because I know people are unlikely to have a worthwhile conversation. I disagree with Yapa’s claims that the Dhamma is verifiable “proof” as is clear from the above and I think it’s a waste of time to attempt to do so. If you want proof, practice.

Since people don’t seem to read links, let me quote a relevant passage. Looks like it’ll be helpful for both believers and non-believers:

“There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked… truly an unbroken tradition… well-reasoned… Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn’t proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, ‘Only this is true; anything else is worthless.”
- MN 95: Cankisutta

Observer said,

May 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

SomeWhatDisgusted, I’ll be the first to admit I have not gone through the whole debate in the previous thread in fine detail – more or less speed reading. Just don’t have the time and most importantly a deep interest!

Anyway I somehow got the sense that these agnostics were bit more proactive than the type I subscribed to hence I thought, maybe this bunch is a bit beyond the agnosticism level. That’s why I protested to Sujeewa, the leader of the pact. Anyway, I shall answer your questions.

Q1: Does that fit in with your stance on agnosticism?

Well my opinion as I have made clear hopefully is that it is unreasonable for an agnostic to challenge believers’ faith as BEING NOT TRUE. For starters we cannot prove it is NOT TRUE. If we can’t then we can’t expect the other side to PROVE it on behalf of us?? Do I make any sense? Since it is a take it or leave it proposition the believers don’t have to prove anything to us.

And also when we take a stance stating that we’re not so sure our selves, we sort of concede that their belief may have some merit – agnosticsm. Hence being on such a wobbly ground, it is a bit douche to demand that they prove what they “believe” to be true, through a deep spiritual faith.

Of course any religious person who believes in their perspective religions/faiths will state that it is the absolute truth. Surely you’re not going to expect anything less?? Why else would they devout time and money in it otherwise? Admittedly even some intelligent, educated people practice various religions and they wouldn’t be doing so unless they saw something truthful in it. Otherwise they’d be agnostics themselves.

Q2: Is it unreasonable to request that it be demonstrated why Buddhism is an absolute truth and how the believers know this?

Absolutely! It goes to not just Buddhism but all other faiths including ridiculous ones like Scientology. It’s a faith. They can never prove it in an ordinary scientific sense! It is not known to mankind yet to connect the living with the next episode. Then “they” say oh but when you reach Nirvana, you will see what’s on the other side and how it’s all interlinked with Karma and blah blah. Since you me or most agnostics can’t or at least won’t try to reach Nirvana we have to take it at face value. So it is unreasonable to ask for proof knowing it is not possible.

Also, Q3: Do you agree, as an “agnostic”, that the Sri Lankan state no longer needs to be secular and Buddhism should be made the official religion?

This question just threw me off. :-S I believe the Sri Lankan state needs to be secular. The constitution doesn’t prevent a person practicing any particular religion nor coming into power. Proportionally looking at the population, Buddhism believers far exceeds other types of believers in Sri Lanka. So it may look like Buddhism has a special place. But really, it is supply and demand.

Q4: In any case, what do you consider to be the fair thing to do in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country?

Slash the budget for all religious activities altogether. BUTTTTT that’s my view. It’s up to the voters isn’t it? Democracy is supposed to provide for the majority’s wish. If the majority are believers and they vote for what they want, who am I to criticise them? I think it’s fair enough! If you believe in democracy that is.

For example, I can never see a non Christian ever becoming the president of the United States. That’s because a huge conservative voter base consider their president being a Christian as something very important. Then they expect from time to time have their way with that leadership. For instance huge debate over stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, wanting to teach intelligent design in schools, integrating the 10 commandments into the justice system, etc originate from these religious groups.

So my point really is, when most of the world population are believers, us agnostics as a minority, it is unfair to demand our way!

Spiritual Man said,

May 10, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

If Bo tree was first brought to Mdagal, Buddhism came first to Tamil Eelam, to the Tamils and not to the Sinhalese in the island.

Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka(SL) is based neither on science nor truth. It is based on myth, taught and brainwashed in “Daham Pasal” when Buddhists are kids. It is similar to Taliban teachings of fanatical Islam in “Madrasses”, causing chaos in the country ande world at large.

I have been unsuccessfully seeking answer for the following questions from my Budddhist friends;

1. Law of Karma believes in reward for good deeds and punishment of rebirth for evil. What is good and evil? Who deteermines it?
2. If there is Law of Karma, who created this law?
3. Any law has to be implemented. Who implements the law of Karma? Creator God.
4. There is no specific evidence to show that a person’s grandmother is born as a worm or insect. But persons who died and came back to life had the experience of either being in heaven or hell, which proves that the rebirth theory is ridiculous.

Buddhism I think is an invention of escapism to refrain from responsibility and accountability for wrong doings and wickedness of persons to fellow human beings.

Mankind is created to love one another and be responsible for his actions, in this world, God has created.

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

Sujewa Ekanayake;

Thanks for your summary (collection of) of my posts. It is definitely useful to me.
It shows your capability in computer and related fields. Definitely it is a commendable effort.

However, the important issue is were you able to achieve your goal. I must remind your expressed goal in that endeavour. It was to prove your proposition that I had mentioned I could prove karma, Buddhist reincarnation and nirvana. Were you able to point out such thing? You may be able to show a “straw man”, but not in my wordings.

I have already said if I say cat, it is only cat and nothing else. If you take my “cat” as “rat” and killed the rat, it doesn’t mean you killed my cat.

Please kill my cat, not your rat. If you cannot at least show my cat.

You are challenging, making allegations, repeating and re-repeating, insulting, cursing, for something which I haven’t said. Whole your arguments were based on this non existent entity. What can you do now?

You can now vomit all what you have said and apologize for your follies as a gentleman.

I think you will behave like a thorough gentleman.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

Dear Spiritual Man;

RE: your post of May 10, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

Oh! you have found the absolute truth, all of a sudden. What a miracle? Please let us too know how you gained that wisdom. Its is awesome! Marvelous! Wonderful!, splendid!,magnificent!, fantastic!, superb!, terrific!, cool!…….. I have no enough words to describe your wisdom. Are you another son of the God?

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

(Oh! Dear) Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

“However, it was not long before some Buddhists started making similarly conceited claims, spearheaded by Mr. Yapa, who claimed in effect, that the “Sinhalese were the holy guardians of indisputable truths which had to be safe-guarded till the western mind was advanced enough to grasp them”.

YOU ARE A STRAW MAN!

Jonny, jonny,…………………….. Telling lies?

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

I take it you have no objection to making God and Yin Yang a part of the state? You are a very fair and considerate individual Mr. Yapa. I guess we have no disagreement then!

I have no problem. But it was you who objected. Please justify your objection.

Please give reason for separating Buddhism from the state of Sri Lanka. (You vowed to fight, but we don’t expect you to fight. Just justify with your enlightened wisdom.)

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted

RE: Your post of May 9, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

Are you now going to hold a referendum to see whether the Buddhism should be separated from the state of Sri Lanks. Really that was not what you were saying. To fight against opposite moves.

Why appealing for sympathy? What happened to your heroic mentality.

Please fight. Now this is the chance for you.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted

“Yapa, who claimed in effect, that the “Sinhalese were the holy guardians of indisputable truths which had to be safe-guarded till the western mind was advanced enough to grasp them”.

I did not see a single “Buddhist” object to such an arrogant claim, which I thought was quite alarming. To me, it was directly reflective of an attitude where as long as one’s own belief was protected, not an iota of thought goes into how such unprovable convictions affect others.

It was at that point that the indisputability of Buddhism was questioned. Clearly, the believers were not at all used to, or comfortable with such questioning, and immediately started reacting defensively, despite repeated acknowledgements that no one was questioning the possibility but only the indisputability. I found the whole reaction extremely revealing of the nature and extent of the prejudice and bigotry within our society, whether it stems from paranoia or whether it stems from just plain childhood brainwashing.”

You are carrying tales to make others angry with us?

You will never give up that unethical and foul tactic.

People without back bone and have no sound facts to support their positions do such ugly things.

Give up lying.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 10, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

“However, what I do object to is *certainty*, which is a highly dangerous concept, as it encourages all sorts of fundamentalist behaviour. History is littered with countless corpses resulting from the unfounded convictions of those who reason this way. I think we are all duty bound to oppose such unreasonable conviction. After all, once we undermine rationality as the basis upon which a society is built on, well, anything goes really! How would one propose to oppose one irrational conviction over another?”

Ho! Ho!! You are the only genuine social worker duty bound to oppose such unreasonable conviction. We are just good for nothing culprits to hold the opposite view?

When you have no arguments, it is best to appeal for sympathy. Isn’t this telling your case in the absence of the opposition to a person to give a judgment? Your audacity is boundless.

Thanks!

Off the Cuff said,

May 10, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

Dear Grasshopper,

“Extra sensory perceptive stuff such as kamma, vipaka, rebirth, nibbana are yet to be proven beyond considerable doubt using any science or math and I do not know whether they ever will be. And this is not to say those stuff are real either.”

Kamma (Pali) = Action (English)
Vipaka (Pali) = Result (English)

Do you mean that walking, Running, Eating, Drinking, playing and everything else you do and the results of what you do “is ESP stuff”?

One needs to Know what one writes about.

Regarding your faith in Science as the source of Truth in every field just read about the US Govt financed Stargate project (Google Stargate). Science could not explain the results.

Research Acupuncture and see if Science can explain the affects. Acupuncture is recognised by the WHO.

So far none of the above have been proven by Science yet both Acupuncture and Remote Viewing are repeatable and brings about Tangible results.

Science’s inability to explain the results shows only that Science is weak in those fields and is an immature tool that is unable to deliver the truth.

Science excels in many fields but is Primitive in the field of Philosophy. Someday it will mature but till then nothing definite can be arrived at Citing Science.

Only a fool will believe otherwise

Off the Cuff said,

May 10, 2010 @ 11:47 pm

Dear Spiritual Man,

“Mankind is created to love one another and be responsible for his actions, in this world, God has created.”

Which God?

The Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Loving one?

How many Humans were created at the beginning by this God and what material did He use?

Off the Cuff said,

May 11, 2010 @ 12:57 am

Dear Observer,

Congratulations on a well written thought provoking balanced post.

There a few Truths that Buddhism regards as Universal

1. The Impermanence of everything
2. That Dukkha pervades life

Would appreciate your views on the above.

(Dukkha has a much wider meaning than “Suffering” the English word oft inappropriately used in place of Dukkha)

This refers to your post of May 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

Burning_Issue said,

May 11, 2010 @ 2:45 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

I concur completely with your post of May 10, 2010 @ 11:27 PM

“No. A democracy does not mean the majority gets carte blanche to trample over the rights of others. It means that the majority is endowed with *responsibility* for making decisions on behalf of others, in a way that is fair and reasonable by all. A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.”

During the debate of the Sinhala Only Language Bill in 1955; Dr. N.M. Perera argued exactly the same manner.

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 11, 2010 @ 3:48 am

Observer,

RE: Sujeewa,

“The ultimate goal (or what I would like to see happen on this planet) is not merely the non-believers* organizing ourselves in order to accomplish goals that we think are important (separation of religions & states, freedom of thought world wide, freedom of expression world wide, freedom of religion or freedom from religion world wide, an end to hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc.), but non-believers, believers & others working together to turn this planet into the paradise that it can easily (w/ the right number of people & effort involved) become.” (my statement)

So after all this, it has nothing to do with religion now? Dude, you just hippied out and fired a barrage of flowers at me. let’s all get together and make the world a better place stuff.. heal the world theme. I don’t know what to say back to you.. other than say it’s nice… haha (your reply)”

Looks like you are unable to follow the full discussion (granted, it is spread out over 1000 comments in the Akon & Buddhiusm article), so, let’s see if I can clarify why the agnostics demand proof for speculative religious items before such religious items are accepted as the absolute truth, is used for supporting laws created by a gov’t which affords the religion the primiary place among religions, & where the religion is used to justify the banning of certain entertainment & economic activities (the Akon issue is one example, not a great one, but close). So, here is a breakdown:

1. Sri Lanka has been a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country for centuries.

2. The inability of the majority – mostly Sinhala Buddhists – to get along with one of the largest minority groups – Tamils – from 1948 until 1983 led to a 26+ year long war. This war ended in 2009.

3. Using Buddhism to justify government policies, under the guise that Buddhism is the truth/the absolute truth/the universal truth, etc. – ignoring the fact that it is just as full of metaphysical speculation & contraditions as the rest of the major religions of this world – will most likely result in a repeat of the 1948 – 1983 problems & thus another long war in SL.

4. Since SL is, at least on paper, a secular country, now is a good time to push for making that secular approach an actual, living fact to be practiced by the gov & other major non-religious institutions in SL. Separating religion from the state has had very positive effects in many countries in this world. Most of the countries that are stuck in poverty & cycles of violence have not adequately separated religon (a set of ideas oriented primarily towards the next life) from secular/common/non-religious life in their important institutions, including gov. (there are also other important things the contribute to the creation of failed states – including xenophobia, racism, not adopting sound economic practices, economic corruption, lack of adequate law & order, etc. – however, creating a secular gov – or laws that are easily justifiable & based on actual things that exist, rather than religious speculative items – is a major step towards improving things in developing countries – specially in SL due to the perception or actuality that the gov favors the Sinhala Buddhists over the Tamils, etc.)

5. Not just Buddhism, but any religion that claims that it is the one true path is dangerous, thus, when those claims are made by the believers, it is a good idea for others to demand proof for the grand claim of the believers. That is how this discussion has come into being.

6. There is another issue, beyond the agnostics vs. believers conflict, that I referred to in my comment above that you quoted – that is that even if the believers & non-believers find the way to co-exist in one country, then the problems that need to be solved STILL need to be tackled. Turning Sri Lanka into an actual secular state with freedom of religion & freedom from religion will not make the poverty, underdevelopment, corruption, the massive brain drain (heavy emigration), lack of employment/work go away on its own – for that, those issues need to be dealt with directly. Ultimately, there will be areas that the believers will be able to excel at when it comes to accomplishing some of the work mentioned above (assisting people who trust the monks & not perhaps secular authorities with things that need to be done, etc.) & some areas where the non-believers may excel at (finance, defense, etc. – since the major religons in SL all, at their core – have an anti-war, anti-wealth building message – but, that has not stopped the SLs from making a lot of war in the past – that’s another topic I guess).

So, as you can see, this is a wide topic. Seeing how other multi-ethnic/multi-religious countries have prospered by adopting a separation of religion and government approach, I definitely think this is a great way for SL to proceed. But, how things go down in SL is ultimately up to people who live in SL full time, however, there is a very large SL diaspora, and, if things are going well or if SL is attempting to do the right thing, many in the diaspora may want to help – which could speed up development of SL.

Hope all that is somewhat clear. If not, let me know.

If, however, you are approaching this topic lightly as mere entertainment, then it is probably best for me to ignore your future comments (& probably better for you & folks like Yapa & OTC to get together & celebrate their living in denial/ignorance is bliss/our religion knows all & we don’t have to worry about non-believers/we don’t have to think about what we do, we just have to do what the monks tell us to do nonsense – instead of engaging in debates with agnostics) & deal with those ones that may be useful, in some way, to making things better in SL, for the diaspora, & world wide in other places.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 11, 2010 @ 4:30 am

Yapa,

Since you are unable to see the similarity between the two statements quoted & instead would rather think about straw & dolls & cranes & other stuff, let me take a look & see if I can point out the similarities. My pointers will be in [brakets].

RE:

“Dear Sujewa Ekanayake;

RE: Your statement of May 9, 2010 @ 10:22 am

How come these two statements are same (or at least similar) to replace the second by the first ? On the other hand why did you want to replace it at all? You could have used my original statement. What is this kindness of yours towards my statements to treat them with your valuable resources?

1.“And this is coming from the same person who called the agnostics “decadent western conspirators” for not believing in the fictional elements that exist in a religion? ”

2.These people like SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa Ekanayake, niranjan,….etc. etc.. are nothing more than ignorant agents of CAPITALISM and NEO-IMPERIALISM [capitalism & neo-imperialism is associted with the west, when used by non-western critics]
who are prepared to give away anything for a left over bone of westerners
[this implies that the agnostics do not understand the real value of things, in error, trading something good for something not so good but perhaps attractive, indulgent, decadent (sp?)].
They don’t know what they are doing or uttering. They are just parrots, who don’t know any thing more than what they were taught by their western masters. No! no!!, they are just tape recorders or CDs that play the tunes when their masters push their buttons.

You love straw men? Dolls?”

You are the one who is always talking about rubbing people & humiliating people & running away & straw men & telling people that they are being feminine (whatever that means in the context of an internet discussion) – you tell me Yapa, does someone who constantantly think about those things have a perhaps an unhealthy fascination with them?

“Thanks!”

Anyway, if you are unable to see the similarity between the two statements above, then it does not surprise me that you take speculative metaphysical concepts used in a world religion (& grand claims for holding the undisputed truth) literally. Most of us outgrow literalism or the inability to recognize symbolic speech in our teens, sadly it appears you have not done so yet. Good luck with that problem.

Anyway, on to the larger matter at hand, close to 100 comments in, it appears that the believers are unable to prove that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, & nirvana are real items that exist in this world & affect real people. So, I guess we can continue to treat Buddhism as merely a religion & not THE only way to do anything of significant importance (outside of Buddhist rituals, etc.).

- S

yapa said,

May 11, 2010 @ 5:38 am

Dear Burning_Issue;

RE: Your post of May 10, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

As a Buddhist or whatever it is I am telling the truth. We have already proved that statement to a certain extent. Truth is not sweet as you think. It may be bitter to many, but it does not make untruth true.

Please come to conclusions based on “Principles of Natural justice. (or without bias) I think you know what principles of Natural justice are?

Further, do you consider all your statements made on the forums on this web are correct, true and justifiable?

You are just trying to judge me by a single statement of mine out of hundreds of my statements and trying to be victorious. Please try to grasp the core of what I was trying to say from all my posts, not from a single one statement that could be interpreted for your preferences and advantageous. .

Don’t you think that it is a little bit unfair and mean?

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 11, 2010 @ 6:25 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

Now you say;

[You misunderstand me Mr. Yapa. I have no objection whatsoever to having Buddhism as part of the state provided that Yin Yangs, Stargates, UFOs, alien abductions, Flying Teapots, Churches of the FSM, Shilboot, God and any other concept which cannot be disproven, are also made part of the state (since this was your criteria for not separating a concept from a state).]

But you had no such qualifications at the time you made your heroic (or heroine???) statement that you would fight against to protect the secular state of the country.

Now as a man stand firm on your stance and do the justice to your own statement. Why slippery like an eel? Stand up like a lion.

We need heroes, not cowards who cannot stand their stance. See all of us with your mud slinging, unethical behaviour and popular propaganda stood upright with our facts. We have made so much contributions with bringing in new knowledge into this forum. Can you show anything new and valuable three of you brought into this forum other than just jabbering? You filled the forum with semantics and empty words like word factories, and insulted us with jealousy and in fear of breaking down of your egos.

Come with facts and challenge our views, prove your cases, just don’t try to get popular and cheap advantages.

Any way fulfill your promise. PLEASE SHOW THAT BUDDHISM SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM STATE OF SRI LANKA, as you vouched.

Thanks!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 11, 2010 @ 7:53 am

Dear OTC,

My apologies. Wrong link to the list of prizes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

And I should have said one of the “most impressive and grand discoveries in the history of mankind”. Still, such a discovery would invalidate the current mainstream scientific world view that the world is causally closed and open up a whole new world of exciting scientific possibilities. I mean, who wouldn’t want these things to be true? The only problem is, we are yet to find any evidence that conclusively shows that causal closure is violated.

The implications would be stunning. After all, such a thing as “miracles” become possible too and Christians can rejoice as much as the Buddhists, since it could potentially validate both world views. Agnostics, rationalists or whatever would rejoice by default because they don’t care about it either way. Strong atheists might be flustered a little bit. Weak atheists would be no different from agnostics (I’m probably best classified as a weak atheist and not an “agnostic”. I don’t believe the existence and non-existence of something is equiprobable or 50-50. I think that’s an absurd position to hold. My personal bet is that most agnostics are either weak atheists or weak believers. It is highly unlikely that anyone thinks the existence and non-existence of fairies for example, is a 50-50 proposition. However, to avoid confusion with the general, mistaken connotations of the word atheist, I will continue to use agnostic to avoid confusion).

cheers,
/SD

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 11, 2010 @ 10:02 am

So I guess I’ll just have to keep re-posting the following quote since Yapa does not recall saying the following:

Yapa on coming up with a system to explain karma, reincarnation, nirvana to non-belivers:

“I think I am in the middle of a sequential process trying to explain the “KRN model” so that it is convinced to the non believers. I don’t know whether it will work out, due to various reasons. But I’ll try my best. However, to understand the final conclusion (result), one has to be aware of what I have already said and going to say in my essays, as they are interlinked. You also may have observed that I am in a somewhat systematic process. I don’t think I can do what you request in a single post. Buddha himself has said that subject of universe and karma are unthinkable. (“Loka Vishaya saha karma vishaya achinthyai”). Really what I am trying to do is something Buddha said as almost impossible. However, still I am trying to formulate a some sort of methodology.”

For the full comment, go here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17538

::

Also, stay tuned for The Quotable Yapa II – where we take a close look at the many instances where Yapa aligns Buddhism with modern science in order to put forward the validity & relecance of Buddhism.

Yapa,

Do you recall saying that you are attempting to do something that even Einstein said was impossible (in reference to your attempt to prove the existence of karma, etc.)? If not, stay tuned, that quote is coming tomorrow.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 11, 2010 @ 11:14 am

Yapa on Science & Buddhism, Quote Analysis 1

Hi All,

Yapa frequently throws in references to his very carefully developed belief that Buddhism is – or Buddhist ideas/world view/philosophy/religious theories – are, supported by modern science. However, like subliminal advertising, the direct expression of this belief is hidden – in plain sight – around a lot of other nonsense. So, we have to take a very close look & point out the direct evidence for the impression that Yapa carefully gives – both stating his position & appearing to not provide instances where his belief can be quoted back to him verbatim. So, take a look at the following (this is one out of hundreds of instances where Yapa attempts to use modern science to support the validity of his faith based claims, a new list of such quotes is coming soon – The Quotable Yapa Part II if you will :

First, the somewhat isolated Yapa on Buddhism & Science quote:

From this comment: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-17346

“Now do you accept that there is a truth in what I said that Buddhism based on Four Valued Logic + Something cannot be understood through Newtonian Knowledge System, the base of which is Two Valued Logic. Doesn’t this say Buddhism cannot be understood by rationality, with any amount of hair splitting arguments? Doesn’t this say there is a possibility to understanding Buddhism through Four Valued System based Modern Science?”

Now, let’s isolate that last line & take a close look at it, now that we have some context for it, & see what it says:

“Doesn’t this say there is a possibility to understanding Buddhism through Four Valued System based Modern Science?”

Or, to put it in another way, the above question by Yapa states that he believes that modern science supports Buddhism. But, since he knows he is incapable of clearly demonstrating this belief to non-believers, he states it in a way that leaves many outs for him – where he can say that he did not literally say that modern science definitely supports Buddhism. However, a closer reading shows that this is in fact what he does say in the above sentence – at the least, he believes that modern science being able to demonstrate Buddhism as being true is a possibility. It appears to be a weak expression, but, when you consider what is being referred to – the possibility that modern science can verifiy the existence of fantastic items such as karma, reincarnation, nirvana & other core elements of Buddhism in the real world – this is similar to a Christian claiming to be able to find Noah’s Ark fully in tact on some mountain – it is an epic, & not to overuse a word – & fantastic claim. If what Yapa says is possible, it would completely upend much of the way we perceive human existence (for better or for worse, no such thing will be happening, because Yapa is just engaging in some very clever religious propaganda, promoting non-existent things).

Many more Yapa on Buddhism & Science quotes are on the way, all week long – & the full list this weekend.

It is constantly repeated claims such as the one above – thrown in with a whole lot of other stuff – by Yapa primarily – that lead me to isolate the “show proof for Buddhism via science, etc.” question/challenge that sits at the top of this article. Yapa’s tactic of attempting to confuse & bewilder people with a mass of material & inserting his indefensible faith based beliefs at the middle of it all & then attempting to make it all sound somehow less fantastic/acceptable/reasonable than the nonsense that gets put out to support the “Truths” in the other major religions fails when one carefully isolates & reads & thinks about his claims.

More soon.

The illusions created by Yapa are all around us (when we are staring at this & the other thread [that's a play on something you said earlier Yapa]

- S

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 11, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

Dear OTC,

You said: “But the Article has gone beyond that and into areas that Observer correctly points to. It questions the concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Nibbana on the basis that “Science” has no answer. This presupposes that “Science” knows it all. This of course is a fallacy in every branch of Science.”

While I completely and have repeatedly agreed with you that science does not know it all (I don’t think it can be done even in principle), I’m not sure where the article says that “the concepts of KRN are questioned on the basis that science has no answer”.

None of the angostics seem worried about science or its limitations, which are freely acknowledged. We are asking for evidence or reasons to believe that this KRN concept is real, especially since it was preceded by a certain someone’s claims that Buddhism was a holy truth, the Sinhalese were the guardians of that truth and that Buddhism and the state are inseparable, all of which are claims that intimately affect the lives of others. Even if Mr. Yapa were to be dismissed as a fringe fundie, we are objecting on the grounds that *none of the Buddhists saw it fit to object to such a claim or voluntarily renounce it*. I strongly believe that the Buddhists themselves must keep the nutters in line and make sure that Buddhism does not degenerate into the brand of fundie cult typically found in Christianity and Islam (sorry, this is not an insult to moderate believers, simply the truth – history bears this out quite well). Wanting to take *reasonable* steps to protect Buddhism is one thing, giving a free-ride to the nutters is another, especially since everyone else is outnumbered 7 to 3.

In any case, so far, the only thing we’ve heard in terms of a fair argument is that the Buddha said do this and do that, and you’ll find out for yourself. This sounds reasonable enough at a surface level. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be people who’ve done this and done that, and who can show us that somehow they have indeed stepped out of the matrix and are not merely hallucinating. I mean, this would be something easy to do right? Why can’t such a person point out a fundamental physical property of the universe or write an equation or something that *only a person who has stepped outside of the matrix* could have known about? I’m simply showing you reasonable means with which a strong case could be built for ESP type phenomena. In the event of a failure to do so, on what grounds would you dismiss the possibility of sincere delusion, a common ailment of the human mind, with a solid and immense body of evidence to back it up?

My point being, as long as no solid evidence is provided, KRN remains a matter of faith and while such a thing might still lie in the realm of possibility and I would certainly not discourage further investigation, to claim it as an absolute truth can only be done in Mr. Yapa’s wildest dreams. Would you disagree?

cheers,
/SD

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 11, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

Dear OTC,

“Dismissing Yin Yang can only be RATIONALLY done if we can provide an explanation that will enable the identification of even just ONE additional Acupuncture point, where science says by sticking a needle in it will produce such and such result. Science has not done that yet.”

Interesting indeed. I didn’t know that and I will take your word for it.

However, I would highlight several things.

1. The circular yin-yang forced predicted by the theory have not been discovered. Where did they come from? Such forces would therefore be beyond 21st century technology and even beyond the 4 fundamental forces identified in the universe, with which even the operation of stars have been accurately described. How would you reckon the ancient Chinese discovered a fundamental force which they had no equipment to detect and which has not been demonstrated to have any physical effect anywhere on this planet, other than in acupuncture?

2. What if the Ancient Chinese simply tried out these acupuncture patterns, and perhaps discovered a particularly effective pattern, which might correspond to certain pressure points or whatever in the human body? They then speculated that forces emanated from the body in that pattern and named them Yin-Yang.

Just an alternate and far more credible explanation. Of course at a fundamental level, I agree that I cannot dismiss the idea. This is also partly because I’ve not read up on the current research on acupuncture enough to make a reasonable decision, however, to the best of my knowledge, no scientists have acknowledged the existence of Yin Yang. No opposition to further research as usual.

cheers,
/SD

Observer said,

May 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

Off the Cuff,

Since you’d like to know my views on your 2 propositions.. here it is:

1. The Impermanence of everything

Hmm this is a tough… rather tricky one. You have to be careful what you mean by “everything”. If you take compound constructs of basic material of the universe which is matter, then they’re all impermanent. From minute dust particles & micro organisms to large animals, complex contraptions of modern science and the nature, planets, solar systems, galaxies it self… basically everything!

But then one of the basic principles of physics is that matter can neither be destroyed nor created. Thus implies matter is something permanent in the universe. What you and I are built out of never ceases to exist but merely changes the form. You see where I start to become uneasy now. Then it also comes down to the big bang theory, one of the biggest mysteries of the universe in terms of the origin and the time before that. There are many theories out there but hopefully the large hedron collider experiments can shed some lights into this mystery in our life times.

Anyway leave the matter aside, take all the matter away, what about the empty space we call the infinite universe?? That is something permanently there as well far as my unenlightened mind can comprehend. Universe, nothingness is something and it is permanent!

To summarise, I believe matter is permanent and so is the universe. But the shapes and moulds matter take during the light years of expansion and contraction of the universe is all impermanent as the universe will shrink back into a dense singularity destroying everything.

2. That Dukkha pervades life

First of all I have to understand what Dukkha is before I can answer this. (Dukha yanu kumakda?) Unfortunately I can’t confidently tell you I have gotten past the 1st question of the 4 noble truths. If I am able to answer this question accurately, then according to Buddhist teachings I would be 1/4 of the way to Nirvana! I’m pretty sure I haven’t completed this course even 1% let alone 25%! So sorry!

Observer said,

May 11, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

Dear SomeWhatDisgusted,

“Let me rephrase: *If* a believer claims superiority for their beliefs, is it unreasonable to ask them to show on what basis they claim this superiority?”

It’s not unreasonable to ask for basis of their claims. Boy trust me! They won’t shut up about the reasons. Buttt, you can’t expect answers in the same wavelength.. so to speak.

Let me logically lay this out to you…
We agreed science cannot explain everything!
YET, we’re asking for explanations that fall in line with science!?

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction/impossibility of this? If we accept the limitations of science then we also have to expect that those limitations won’t allow for the explanation you’re seeking… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now? Until then it is absolutely unreasonable to challenge the believers unless you become a believer your self by becoming an Atheist at least.

Also, if some claim that Buddhism and the state are inseparable, is it unreasonable to ask on what basis others should be affected by their speculative belief system?

Why do you say Buddhism and the state are inseparable? I don’t think it is the case in Sri Lanka. Sure we have a Buddhist president, so is it unreasonable for him to go to Temples or worship Buddha? Just like other world leaders go to Church, Mosque, invite the pope for chit chat, etc?

I should emphasize that I have no objection to people believing in their religion in the privacy of their own home and see no reason to question their beliefs, but if they wish to impose it on me via the state, they’d better have some way to justify it.

I totally agree, but how is the Sri Lankan state imposing Buddhism on the population? I disagree with you here stating that I do not believe a bit that the Sri Lankan state is imposing Buddhism on others. I’d like to know your basis for this claim before elaborating my answer. The state funds a range of religious schools from Buddhist to Hindu and Muslim. Obviously more Buddhist schools because the country is predominantly Buddhist. On Vesak we have Buddhist programs, during Christmas we have marathon sessions of Jesus crucifixion & Santa Clause movies. Most religious days of all faiths are public holidays. So I find it hard to understand why you’d imply that the state is shoving Buddhism down people’s throat.

But at the same time most States give special provisions for the majority religions of their respective countries. For instance in Western countries Churches are subsidised by Tax. Is that reasonable? Pope will visit the country at the host government’s expense.. I mean the security for the pope is only second to the US president. Is it fair for a Buddhist/Muslim who live in such a country, his tax money be used to host the pope whom he/she has no interest in seeing? When Dalai Lama has to come through the back entrance, so the Chinese won’t see it? So these unfair things happen and I’m sure in Sri Lanka there is a slight unfair advantage towards Buddhism. But that happens and you just have to make sure it is not over the top. In Sri Lanka I don’t think it’s over the top bias towards Buddhism IMHO.

You said: “Democracy is supposed to provide for the majority’s wish.”
No. A democracy does not mean the majority gets carte blanche to trample over the rights of others. It means that the majority is endowed with *responsibility* for making decisions on behalf of others, in a way that is fair and reasonable by all. A democracy should aim to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, anyone can see that it is an unfair system for minorities and an absurd and unethical form of governance in the 21st century.

While I said that where did I say that I endorsed trampling on individual rights? No absolutely not. But at the same time the candidates have to listen to their supporters, otherwise they will lose votes. If they’re a vocal religious group then you sometimes give sway to craziness. Isn’t that exactly the reason why Bush vetoed stem cell research when it was first passed through the congress? That was to please the majority Christians.

Another example. Why is gay marriage only legally recognised in few state in the US? Isn’t it the right of 2 gay people in love to marry and have a family? Those rights are trampled on by the pressure of religious voters!! So I’m pointing these out in the most advanced democracy in the West.

Democracy isn’t perfect and majority voice sometimes drowns out the minority voice. It happens!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 11, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

Dear Observer,

You said: “… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now?”

No. Unfortunately you don’t You might not realize it, but you are essentially arguing that nothing is knowable. Forget about science. We’ve already covered the philosophical basis behind science. Believe me, science is based on practicality, nothing else. But let’s disregard science for the moment.

The question is, how do you know anything? Are you saying it’s impossible to know anything? Fat lot of good right? So how do you show another person the world is flat for example? How would you explain to another you are sad or happy?

Saying things are unknowable doesn’t hold much water. It makes *philosophical* sense, but no practical sense whatsoever. There are millions and billions of things which are unknowable. For example, can you prove to me conclusively that there’s no such thing as a fairy?

We accept something as true if there is some evidence or we have experienced it ourselves or some such thing. Physical or logical evidence is hard to trump, since it becomes hard to deny. Experiential evidence is less believable. We don’t know whether the other person is deluded – a very common occurence.

Bottom line, if you continue with your line of reasoning, you’ll see that you end up arguing that nothing is knowable. That’s all very well from a philosophical perspective. From a practical perspective, I think you’ll agree that it’s not that useful.

You said: “I disagree with you here stating that I do not believe a bit that the Sri Lankan state is imposing Buddhism on others. I’d like to know your basis for this claim before elaborating my answer.”

No. I’m very happy to say that the Sri Lankan state is not. And it *should stay that way*. The protest is against those who claim that Buddhism should be a part of the state. Again, you would need to read the Akon thread to gain the necessary context.

You said: “For instance in Western countries Churches are subsidised by Tax. Is that reasonable?”

Not at all. It should be banned. A good example of a tyranny of the majority. I see no reasonable basis to request tax exemption. God probably wouldn’t need tax money, in the offhand event that he exists.

You said: “In Sri Lanka I don’t think it’s over the top bias towards Buddhism IMHO.”

Question the state of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Just go speak around a bit. How many of them think like Mr. Yapa here, that they are holy guardians of eternal truths which Judeo-Christian conspirators are actively trying to destroy? Now extrapolate from there where at least a part of Sinhalese paranoia stems from. Observer, I know you want to see a country free of prejudice and bigotry as I’ve followed your posts regularly (and they are very interesting). However, we can’t expect to see that by just asking the Tamils to fix their paranoid attitudes. The Sinhalese need to fix theirs too. There’s a fair amount of literature on this phenomenon. I know that both Sinhalese and Tamil paranoia might stem from understandable reasons. Most things can be sympathized with at the end of the day! But we can’t continue to excuse it on that basis and let these silly attitudes prevail. Plus, not everyone has such attitudes either, but we should strongly oppose those who do.

You said: “While I said that where did I say that I endorsed trampling on individual rights?”

I know you didn’t. But that is a *necessary implication* of simply saying democracy is rule of the majority, is it not? I merely wanted to clarify that democracy is not as simple as that.

“Why is gay marriage only legally recognised in few state in the US? Isn’t it the right of 2 gay people in love to marry and have a family? Those rights are trampled on by the pressure of religious voters!! So I’m pointing these out in the most advanced democracy in the West.”

I agree. That’s a good example of a tyranny of the majority and a failure in democracy. Should we happily try to emulate their failures or learn from their mistakes? Should we not try to prevent similar mindsets from solidifying here in SL? Also, notice the common denominator? It’s usually the religious brigades who cause trouble. Never mind America, look at the Muslim world. Blind, unreasonable convictions almost invariably end up causing trouble. That’s what’s being opposed here, not a private belief in Buddhism.

cheers,
/SD

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 11, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

Dear Burning Issue,

I don’t disagree with you about the Sinhala Only bill. I’m happy that it was overturned. It’s of vital importance that Tamils do not feel they are second class citizens in Sri Lanka, it is their own country after all. In that regard, you will not see any hesitance in me voicing support. I cannot comprehend a Sri Lanka without Tamils in it. It simply wouldn’t be Sri Lanka anymore.

At the same time, I do not endorse racism of any kind, whether it comes from the Sinhalese or whether it comes from the Tamils, no matter how justified each party considers it to be. That is because it becomes an intractable problem as long as things degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise. In any case, I suspect most reasonable people would desire to eventually see a Sri Lanka which is largely free of racial and religious bigotry and inline with the attitudes worthy of a 21st century democracy. Unfortunately, given our historic legacy, this is not an easy goal to reach and I think we can only reach it gradually and painfully, by opposing these backward attitudes and putting our humanity above this silly racial and religious paranoia.

Not an easy path and IMHO, all communities need to move! Your thoughts are welcome.

cheers,
/SD

Burning_Issue said,

May 11, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

The Sinhala Only Bill was a brutal enforcement of Majoritism on the Tamil speaking minorities! The Sinhala hardliners did not have to do that; all they had to do to create conditions for peoples to live wherever they liked; Sinhala being the majority language, eventually the minorities would have had no choice but learning it.

“I cannot comprehend a Sri Lanka without Tamils in it. It simply wouldn’t be Sri Lanka anymore.”

It is very well put; likewise, I have always said that, the Sri Lankan Tamils historically have had more affinity with the Sinhala than their counterpart in South India prior to the ethnic divide. Despite this divide, I still feel that, we Tamils in Sri Lanka can mend relationships with the Sinhala than fostering elusions about Tamil kinship with Tamil Nadu; this is my own opinion. However, I do have a big reservation about this; I hope I am wrong.

I do vehemently oppose the aggressive nature of the army planting Buddha statues all over the North & East. Contrary to what many Sinhala say that, politicised and protected Buddhism in Sri Lanka does harm nothing; the army has taken as its duty to paint the whole of Sri Lanka with Buddhist emblems. This is, especially, at the dawn of the defeat of extreme form of the Tamil nationalism; the very army that executed the death nail of the LTTE that is engaged in such activities sending a triumphed message to the Tamil minorities that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist nation; you Demilas do remember this! This tells me that; the GOSL has eschewed the concept of reconciliation but embracing the blatant and irresponsible act of subjugation!

“That is because it becomes an intractable problem as long as things degenerate into a finger-pointing exercise.”

Ahh; I am sorry; I have pointed my finger at the army and GOSL. What else I can do; I am a Tamil and belong to an insignificant minority group!

” I suspect most reasonable people would desire to eventually see a Sri Lanka which is largely free of racial and religious bigotry and inline with the attitudes worthy of a 21st century democracy.”

This is going to be problematic when insecurity has engulfed all Sri Lankans; the majority is insecure fearing for their very existence; the minorities are insecure for obvious reasons. The fact that, you and I use pseudonyms on these forums speaks volumes; we do not want to be labelled as traitor or terrorist then what chance is there for our desire to see Sri Lanka becoming a 21st century democracy? I am afraid that, the Buddhist Hardliners are in charge and by the time they finish it, Sri Lanka will be 90% Sinhala Buddhists; then perhaps there will be a light at the end of the tunnel! Just like Wijayapala said; at this stage Sri Lanka can think about secularising with no fears for Buddhism disappearing; there is a long way to go!

BalangodaMan said,

May 12, 2010 @ 4:41 am

Dear Ordinary Lankan (May 11, 2010 @ 12:16 pm)

You said in your reply to SpiritualMan.

“when you do something good or bad it has consequences …lets take the example of a serial killer – the first killing would have been difficult – but with more and more killings he loses touch with the value of human life – and through his actions he denies the value of human life including his own – his thoughts and actions lead him to an inner environment that turns out to be self detructive.”

Oh how I wish it was like that! It ain’t! Sorry!

On the contrary, serial killers get more and more pleasure from victim to victim. Many people who do bad things do them because they get great pleasure from them, and increasingly so. Take corrupt politicians for example! Take sharp business practices. It is their food. It is what they do and many are good, and progressively get better … at being bad!

Do you really think people who do good things are necessarily happy? Again I hope that is the rule, but sadly, it ain’t!

We like to promote the idea that good leads to good, and bad leads to bad (as the doctrine of karma does).

BUT the issue in this debate is not that. The issue is whether there is some celestial mechanism in place in the universe that ENSURES that, or is DESIGNED to ensure that good leads to good and bad leads to bad. Now (despite what our religious books tell us) we can SEE that that is not necessairly so (I can be a real pain and list hundreds of well known cases where you can observe that the opposite is true).

So let’s talk practicalities. Do we abandon our sense of propriety and go on a killing spree? No! The answer I think is to promote the doing of good deeds on the basis that … they are good to do! Simple. Not because they will (surely/apparently/guaranteed to) bring personal rewards from some unseen celestial reward scheme (the celestial air miles?) in this life or the next – who may let you down and you will be disappointed, as many are. You see, if you study the motivations of bad people you find that (many said) they tried to be good like they were told as children but were disappointed – the ‘naughty boys got away with it’ and vice versa. So they learned early in life that the ‘system’ does not work the way they said it would

(if you too mean karma to mean ‘action/consequence’ like if you put a finger in the fire it will burn then, like someone has already pointed out earlier, it is obvious. We don’t need a Buddha to tell us that. In the field of management consulting you would be struggling to justify billing for that!)

Doubtful said,

May 12, 2010 @ 7:10 am

Aney Mr Yapa, If you have no doubt about the Buddhist doctrine – which according to you have been logically and scientifically PROVEN to be the truth, the whole truth and the only truth, then there is not much point for you in being part of this discussion is there?
Why do you not spend your time better by trying to rid yourself of all ‘thanha’ and ‘aasha’ (not dancing to ‘Aasha’ – the bhangara song) to attain nirvana…? Unless ofcourse, commenting on a ‘transitionary’ – ‘impermanent’, ‘ever changing’ thread on a ‘Christian conpiratory’ website ‘sponsored by Western INGOs’ to ‘undermine the sublimity of Buddhism’ is your idea of nirvana?! That’s not really the ‘middle path’ to ‘enlightenment’ now is it???
To all those who are fearful of western conspiracies – having elected a government and opposition we thoroughly deserve, and given that the opposition is too busy searching for their balls, the IMF is our only hope to even get a budget!!!
Go figure!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 12, 2010 @ 11:57 am

Dear Burning Issue,

You said: “Politicised Buddhism, A Common Sri Lankan Identity, and Nation Building are mutually exclusive. A common Sri Lankan identity cannot be promoted with Buddhist prominence in Constitution; thus, a nation cannot be built; this is my point.”

This is a very good point. However, it is not that a nation cannot be built, it is that an *ideal* and *fair* nation cannot be built. This is probably the point you are making?

However, before we can build an ideal nation, we must have some sort of nation to begin with? That cannot happen as long as we are blowing each other to pieces. No matter how hard we wish for it or demand it, things are just going to take time. That is not to say we shouldn’t try to change things!! But progress will be slow.

My opinion is that instead of exacerbating the situation (which the LTTE definitely did and now have nothing to show for it), we need to take what positive steps we can (i.e. Getting Sinhala Only rolled back. Making Tamil an official language etc.). I just don’t see any shortcuts.

cheers,
/SD

BalangodaMan said,

May 12, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

A belated hello to contributors on this thread.

Doubtful – perhaps you can get through to Mr Yapa where we could not! Like it.
Chula – I respect your immense knowledge of Buddhism. I think people like you are more likely to succeed in changing bigoted attitudes in SL than us sceptics.
Spiritualist – Mr Yapa hasn’t answered your questions on karma. But I think the answer would be (from his previous posts) karma is not designed or administrated by anyone. It is like gravity. It just is. The Buddha explained this because he is omniscient. The short answer is ‘karma was designed by whoever created gravity’. It could well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows? Karma was not invented by the Buddha so we may insult the creator of karma as much we like I guess. However, I do wish it was designed with more transparency, rights of appeal etc.
Ordinary Lankan – I can see you will really enjoy debating on this forum on this topic!
Burning Issue – while I was born into a Sinhala Buddhist family I make it a point to promote the scientific research (Stanford U) that our DNA shows that our ancestors are predominantly from South India – 75% (that is all who label themselves Sinhala or Tamil). Race is a social construct. (should SL have a law to make denying this illegal? like Holocaust Denial?)
Observer – I appreciate you keeping us in check !
Grasshopper – (glass-hoppa?) I like your ‘straight to the point’ approach. I wish you (also) lived in the time of all religious leaders. You would have had some great questions for them!
Citizen – hope you are still following this thread. Welcome your insights.

.. and pertinent contributions from old friends SomewhatDisgusted, Sujewa, Heshan.

To all. They say you should never discuss religion or politics. Those are the they that has got SL into the mess we are in now, in my opinion. The democratic process requires discussion of key issues, and when religion influences (or is likely to influence) politics then religion also comes under the spotlight. It becomes a candidate for rigorous scrutiny, just as all other political claims and promises and non-delivery.

Keep up this necessary debate.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 12, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

Your last post is beautifully argued. Excellent breakdown. Everyone should read it!

A few would doubtless argue that it is possible to go from concept 1 to concept 2 ourselves and thereby verify that it works. Yes, maybe so, and let us know if someone ever succeeds. Until then, it remains a matter of faith.

There is one complication, its followers feel that the Buddha is a far more plausible authority than the Bible, which is another reason it’s difficult to argue the case. The earthiness of concept 1 is confused as evidence for concept 2. This is what they think propels it from “mere faith” to the so called “akaravathi shradda”. What has changed is the face and form of the omniscient authority, not the fact that there is an omniscient authority. Whether that has any more inherent plausibility, is clearly arguable. I guess both of us have similar views on how much more plausible it makes things – not a lot.

cheers,
/SD

yapa said,

May 12, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Dear BalangodaMan;

You say;

“We sceptics cannot argue against ‘Buddhism’. Period. (Mr Yapa, you will love this my darling!)”

You can laugh at yourself. If you think your cheap jokes and common knowledge countered our arguments, based on Science, Modern Science, Philosophy, etc….etc…., laugh as much as you want.

But keep in mind “He who laughs last laughs best”.

You are laughing in ignorance. This is an all time common thing. Many people were laughed at, tortured and killed for telling unfamiliar and unconventional things. You can utter familiar, conventional and emotionally comfortable ideas and laugh at others. But history branded those “important people” as idiots. You will never fail to fall into that bunch of fools. You will never go alone. You have some matching companions.

Oh1 God mercy on these ignorant men.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 12, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

“Your last post is beautifully argued. Excellent breakdown. Everyone should read it!

A few would doubtless argue that it is possible to go from concept 1 to concept 2 ourselves and thereby verify that it works. Yes, maybe so, and let us know if someone ever succeeds. Until then, it remains a matter of faith.”

Writing certificates for accomplices. Motivate each other and try pack hunting, pack of cunning jackals.

Thanks!

BalangodaMan said,

May 12, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

SomewhatDisgusted,

“What has changed is the face and form of the omniscient authority, not the fact that there is an omniscient authority.”

To add to that, you would know … but for the benefit of readers, the name given to SL’s Popular Buddhism is ‘Protestant Buddhism’ (Obeysekera). Meaning, it is a religion promoted to counter (to protest) the growing inroads that the Christian missionaries were making, and that was in the 1880s. What they did was to re-package Buddhism in the same way as Christianity – as a devotional religion. In many ways it is the same thing, with a god-like figurehead to whom followers can pray and show devotion, as far as the devotees care – except with yellow robed monks and temples instead of dog-collared priests and churches. There are many more parallels. This is not surprising because all of the main drivers of this enterprise were originally Christian, perhaps always continued to be !

I have mentioned before, the very first article by Soma Thera in the Sunday Times in the 1990s was to highlight that the Buddhism is SL is really a mixture of Christianity and Hinduism. (Mr Yapa, you listening?)

Whilst we should (I suppose) be thankful that the complete conversion of Ceylon to Christianity was stemmed by this 1880s Buddhist revival we should know the correct history – we can only find out these things now (thanks to the internet pointing to authoritative information) what we were not taught at school.

(Did anyone’s history books say that our treasured Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa were ‘discovered’ covered by the jungle in the early1800s by British explorers? That the locals – that’s us – had no interest in clearing it (for 70 years!), until the British finally cleared it? (The same happened with regards to the archaeological sites in Egypt and Greece that were being pilfered by the locals). Which is just as well as these sites were very valuable to the Buddhist revival that followed, and immensely valuable to the country now. Happy to have this corrected. Anyone?).

(The same happened with regards to the archaeological sites in Egypt and Greece that were being pilfered by the locals)

SD, thanks for your comments

BalangodaMan said,

May 12, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

Mr Yapa! Mr Yapa! Mr Yapa!

When I said …
“We sceptics cannot argue against ‘Buddhism’. Period. (Mr Yapa, you will love this my darling!)”

I really did mean it (well not the darling bit. sorry!). You have missed this very important point that actually says that your argument is UNASSAILABLE. Meaning, you WIN by DEFINITION!

Let me try again. ‘Buddhism’ by definition means the doctrine of an omniscient being – that is, someone who knows everything. None of us (who are not Buddhas) can argue against it. Not me, not SD, not Sujewa!

But what truly saddens me is this. I have to say I have benefited from some of the Buddhist teachings. They have helped me keep cool and focused even in the face of pretty dire adversity. Why has it not helped you?

This is another good reason for this thread. I feel that religious politics has overshadowed the real goodness of some Buddhist concepts (compassion for example, elimination of hate) for those who really could do with some …

Off the Cuff said,

May 12, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

Dear Observer,

Thank you for your very considered and thoughtful reply. Its greatly appreciated. Please continue to remain on the thread and post even if its for selected comments.

Off the Cuff said,

May 13, 2010 @ 12:03 am

Dear Observer,

Yes, I follow your argument. In all probability Emptiness may be the only permanent thing. But consider this.

The empty space though a vacuum keeps changing in size and shape due to the movement of objects. Since objects are in motion the Vacuum would also be changing shape. Then even the Vacuum too would be impermanent. Would that mean that everything is impermanent?

“But then one of the basic principles of physics is that matter can neither be destroyed nor created. Thus implies matter is something permanent in the universe.”

Not really, as mater changes to energy and Vice versa.
e = mc^2

This is what I mean by Dukkha.
The Pali word DUKKA has no exact equivalent in English. The word suffering is used in English to mean Dukka but the word is inadequate to convey the whole gamut of meanings that the Pali word conveys. In discussing Buddhism the authoritative language is Pali not English.

The Buddhist meaning of Dukka (inadequately called Suffering in English) is as follows
Birth is suffering
Ageing is suffering
Death is suffering;
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering;
Association or connection with objects or persons you dislike is suffering;
Separation from loved ones and objects is suffering;
Desiring to get and not getting it or craving is suffering

That briefly is the Buddhist definition of Dukka (suffering). You can refer to my complete post here.
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-18232

Looking forward to an elaboration of your post of May 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

Burning_Issue said,

May 13, 2010 @ 12:26 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

Thanks for patiently outlining your thoughts on the points that I uttered out of anger and emotion!

I concur with everything that you outlined; however, I would like to comment on the following:

“ That the LTTE destroyed ancient Buddhist relics in the north and east and attempted to erase Buddhist identity there.”

I am not here to defend the LTTE and their actions; however, to my knowledge, there were two main places of Buddhist worship within the Northern region: Naynathevu (Nagathepa) and Jaffna Vihara leaving the alleged historical claims aside. I have no knowledge of these two places were destroyed by the LTTE; if they were, they should be restored to their former glory.

“That the Sinhalese are happy to accommodate Tamil Kovils in the south but the Tamils are too racist to accept it in reverse.”

I think that, if the Sinhalese were to settle in North & East by their own free will and build Buddhist Viharas, I would not think that there would objections from the Tamils at all. I say this because, the Tamils never quarrelled about religions. However, they obviously express uneasiness about state sponsored Sinhala only colonisations and erections of Buddha statues by the state machinery. Instead, the state should create conditions for all to move freely and settle wherever one wants to live. If there is a need for a place of worship, the parties concerned should following the local authority rules. The Tamils did not establish Hindu temples as a prelude to them settling in the southern areas; I will stand corrected, if one were to prove me wrong on this.

“I’m not arguing about the truth value of any of these things. My point is, the problem is almost always a matter of *perception*. For example, you perceive the motivation as being subjugation, which is a reasonable suspicion from your point of view. The point of view of the other may be a similar suspicion of the Tamils.”

I agree on the point about *perception*; however, the recent parliamentary election showed, even at the dawn of complete decimation of the LTTE, that the Tamils voted for TNA in numbers as opposed to siding with a party that still clings on to the Vaddukoddai Resolution. What else can the Tamils do to convince the South that they are not for secession but for meaningful political safeguards? The point here is that, it is not about Tamils Vs Sinhala, but it is about Tamils Vs Sinhala & state; it is a hard pill to swallow from the Tamil perspective.

“For example, isn’t the Church of England still symbolically connected to the state through some clause?”

Yes, I agree with the above; however, in Britain, there is no written constitution, but it is mere tradition with no legal connotations.

“The point is, that clause should not be given undue emphasis, because it is not a harmful clause and serves to alleviate Buddhist paranoia. This is why I am personally not campaigning for its removal but once again, I agree with you in principle.”

But to the contrary; it is being used as a vehicle to plant Buddha statues in contentious areas; this is the point. I think that, the new constitution must stipulate as to its purpose. As far as I can see, once a Buddha statue is planted, it cannot be removed as it can be deemed as unconstitutional. I am very sorry that I harp on about this issue relentlessly, but it is important to control religions; a state should divorce from any religious affinity. I know it is too soon to expect from Sri Lanka for now, but we need to build consensus for this to happen in the future.

“Trying to overturn that clause will only be seen by the paranoid as some “Judeo-Christian conspiracy” to undermine Buddhism, especially since the Buddhist revival in response to colonial oppression still does not seem to have abated.”

I agree; but these guys forget that, the Tamils too were subjected to colonial oppression; the entire Mannar district was almost converted to Christianity by the Portuguese. The Tamils were and still are victims of oppressions!

“ The only thing is, I just can’t fathom how this Buddhist paranoia can be brought back to normalcy. No need to look far to understand this. Just think about what a runaway train the LTTE turned out to be. Could anyone contain it once the wheels were set in motion? This Buddhist paranoia thing is similar, it has taken a life of its own.”

I share you concerns; I do not know as to how it can be stopped. My feeling is that, the MR regime can stop this if it wants to, but I doubt it will happen!

“Instead, I think we need to pick our battles. The main thing is gradually breaking down this parochial thinking and transforming our country from a superstitious, ultra-religious, feudal society which is an inevitable result of being mired in poverty and lacking access to modern education, and gradually transforming it into a democracy where the already existing good attitudes of the Hindus, Buddhists etc. are brought out and the militant nonsense phazed out. Education, healthy debate and economic development are the critical factors I believe to breaking down such attitudes. Your thoughts are welcome.”

I cannot argue against the above; yes, it is exactly what should happen. First thing is to resolve the language issue; presently, such debates can only happen in isolation within communities.

Burning_Issue said,

May 13, 2010 @ 12:37 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

“My opinion is that instead of exacerbating the situation (which the LTTE definitely did and now have nothing to show for it), we need to take what positive steps we can (i.e. Getting Sinhala Only rolled back. Making Tamil an official language etc.). I just don’t see any shortcuts.”

I completely agree; I do not know how to proceed about it, but will certainly work towards it.

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 2:03 am

OTC,

Did you really say …
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.” By this you mean that we have a Buddhist Constitution?

Wrong! Very wrong.

‘been given a special place’ is a million miles away from being a fundamental or any aspect of the Constitution! (as far apart as Heather Mills and her other leg!)

I have already listed how a Buddhist Constitution would look. But before I am forced to repost my list – let’s take a look at a well known national constitution that IS religious – any Muslim country – say Saudi Arabia. You will see that Islam is woven into the law of the land. That is not difficult, actually entirely natural, because Islam IS a system of LAW. The law of their god Allah, as revealed through their religious hero Mohammed (pbuh) on how society must be run, cutting off hands etc.

If you do the same with Buddhism you have some hilarious absurdities. Because the natural consequences of Buddhist doctrine is unworkable as ‘laws’ (it is not designed to be ‘law’ of a society. It is based on musings of a person who has rejected society and wants to escape from it). I listed these in an earlier post – an example is, the law will have to outlaw advertising as it would be unconstitutional. It would make people do precisely what the Buddhist teachings encourage you not to do (ie. want things). At any rate it would make ‘desire/craving’ more difficult to resist. If you say, the constitution allows OTHER religions to exist – oooooh well well well … does that mean that advertising is unlawful ONLY if targeted towards Buddhists? That advertising to target non-Buddhists will be legal???? Or advertising is allowed but you could fall foul of the law if a Buddhist is persuaded to want the Mercedes-Benz that the lottery is offering as first prize?

What about having a cricket team?

More like Shilboot, right?

OTC, you are seeing words and getting the wrong meaning. This is similar to you saying ‘karma works in this life because if you put your finger in the fire it will burn’ – how’s that anywhere near ‘if you put your finger in the fire … it will burn in the next life’? Or ‘karma is recognised in every modern judicial system’! You’re making tenuous connections between things that are very very far apart.

OTC, when you say ‘Buddhism is already part of the constitution’ it is the same as saying ‘Christianity is part of the Govt of SL’ because there are some Christian MPs in parliament?

yapa said,

May 13, 2010 @ 6:34 am

Dear BalangodaMan;

You say;

“it was your colleague Mr Yapa who stated that karma, rebirth, nirvana are real things that can be proved with scientific methods.”

DELIBERATE LIAR. BACK YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE.

(Anyway) thanks!

Citizen said,

May 13, 2010 @ 6:53 am

@Mr Yapa: I did not mean to hurt or pass judgement on you and whether or not you agree with my views is of little consequence in this forum. I was merely stating the fact that your arguments bore little -if any- substance for intellectual reflection and i have not seen anything that made me change my mind. Don’t feel condemed by that however – what i or anyone else thinks should not matter to you if you are assured in your own faith.

yapa said,

May 13, 2010 @ 7:24 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

Your sarcasm;

[But you don’t worry, Mr. Yapa, the Buddha would be proud of your understanding, compassion for other human beings and stellar services rendered in preserving holy truths.]

There were a lot of people who made undue sarcastic remarks in the past. All of them are now suffering in hell.

Did you apply for your Visa?

(Anyway) Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am

OTC & everyone else,

RE OTC’s:

“Science is not a know all to be held as the Standard for Truth. This is what I am trying to argue against. So far I have not seen an argument that does not PRESUME that Science is a “Know All” and IS the litmus test for the TRUTH. “ ”

I think automatically reducing the demand for proof into a demand of scientific proof happened, partially, due to that type of argument being a familiar debate to Buddhists/the believers. This happened somewhere along the 1000+ comments in the Akon thread. So, let me clarify – the proof for karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana need not come in the form of scientific proof (as in, what is considered scientific/based on the method used to prove things in science now or in the recent past), but the proof needs to be verifiable by non-believers or somewhat believers & others – meaning, the proof has to show that karma, reincarnation/rebirth, nirvana – as described in Buddhism – are actual aspects of this world/this universe – and not just either religious speculation or fiction or most likely fiction. It appears to me that the karma, R, nirvana are ancient symbolic devices – ideas basically – used in order to get people to follow a certain path – in the same way the conept of God/Heaven, etc. is used in Christianity & in many religions older than both Buddhism & Christianity. Thus, claiming that any ancient religion contains the absolute truth about the world, how the universe works, how the afterlife may work if there is an afterlife is absolute nonsense. If it were not to be received as speculative items, non-existent in the real world items, then the believers have to show that those items do in fact exist in the real world & has an effect on real people. No manner of semantic skills, evasion, & saying that “it has not been proven as false” will not help believers when it comes to attempting to demonstrate to all that what is perceived as speculative items in a religion (perceived by non-believers) are in fact real items – of great concern & relevance to all (& not just the believers).

The real problem, underneath the debate over the realness or fakeness of ideas at the core of Buddhism is, as SomewhatD & others pointed out many times, many Sinhalese are attempting to unify Sri Lanka or create a common Sri Lankan identity using Buddhism – which is a project that is bound to fail – because Sri Lanka (the entire island, no matter what name it has gone by in the past) has never, in recent/recorded history been an entirely Buddhist island. So, if the plan expressed via the constitution – keeping the state secular & still ensuring that Buddhism is protected/assisted is to be carried out in good faith (while at the same time protecting other religions & non-believers) there may be hope for both creating a common & useful Sri Lankan identity & ensuring that SL Buddhism & other religions remain/stay alive on the island.

Here is why neither the Tamil extremist dream of a separate state nor the Sinhala-Buddhist extremist dream of an entirely Buddhist Sri Lanka will never come true: underneath the recently/new (since 1948) in the current level of strength political identities called Sinhala and Tamil, we are talking about the same people (regardless of what european race theory/tool of conquest & government used by the British tells you) – a group of humans who were born on an island & have a both fierce independent nature to them & also think very highly of themselves/have a high degree of self-respect (& knowledge of their histories preserved either in SL in the South for the Sinhalese or in SL North & East & elsewhere/Tamil Nadu/elsewhere in the Tamil diaspora for the Tamils). So, even if the goals of either camp were to be accomplished & sustained for a brief period of time, it will surely be contested & dismantled w/in a generation by the other side. So, the best way for success, I think, for Sri Lanka is to build a common, secular Sri Lankan identity, & at the same time protect freedom of religion & freedom from religion on SL. Of course, it may take another war cycle for this view to be accepted by the hard core on the Sinhala side, but let’s hope not.

::

The recently annouced paln (i saw a press release less than 2 weeks ago) by the SL gov to train a million+ gov employees in tamil/english/sinhala – get them proficient in all 3 languages is definitely a giant step forward/towards improving things in SL/a step in the right direction, if it were to be actually & successfully carried out. [i could not find the link to the SL gov press release w/ the mentioned info, but google thinks that President Rajapaksa’s Vision for SL includes a reference to the new focus on multi-linguistic proficiency:
http://www.priu.gov.lk/mahindachinthana/MahindaChinthanaEnglish.pdf

::

Anyway, for the moment, in my opinion, things look better for SL (the lesser of the two evils since the early 2000′s or so, in my opinion, won the civil war), so let’s use this new peace time to set things up that will take SL beyond the horrible mistakes of the past & into SL being one of the best countries on earth for real (not just in extremist fantasies); meaning – economic development & individual freedom & rights – creating space to think freely for Lankans/unbound by ancient religious prohibitions is key to transforming SL into a far better place.

::

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 13, 2010 @ 8:57 am

SomewhatD,

RE:

“Dear Sujewa,

“However, such a thing would require a pretty huge change between how Lankans in SL & Lankans in the diaspora relate to each other” (my statement)

I definitely agree with you. This is something that I too feel is critical to making a change in Sri Lanka. A massive income earner for SL is employment in the middle east – many as domestic workers. It is decidedly unfortunate that we have been unable to tap in similarly into the exodus of qualified professionals, who, as you’ve shown from your quick calculation, could potentially make a far more massive contribution… (your response)”

Yup, there are some seriously (by any standard, US or SL or otherwise) wealthy people – Sinhala & Tamil – in the SL Western diaspora. Or, even regular folk/people with any kind of a FT job – in the Western diaspora – can & will raise/put aside $1K a year to help SL if they think that it will actually do some good (i think, or at least that is the impression i get when i talk to people).

Yeah, this is definitely an entirely different topic, & a useful one to discuss. I will blog about it at my SL agnostics blog & get feedback & try to develop a useful article from it perhaps. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions re: this matter, comment here, share.

One of the problems, or two, actually, when dealing w/ fundraising for SL in the west/US in SL diaspora communities that may come up are: 1) is the money goig to be used well/the corruption in SL issue. 2) who will it benefit? just the sinhalese? just the tamils? etc. So, obviously we need an NGO (since many tamils will feel that any SL gov agency is too sinhala) that is trusted & supported by the SL Gov & also trusted & supported by the SL diaspora/all ethnicities. I wonder how people feel about Sarvodaya? Is it too Buddhistic & too Sinhala? How does it rank in term of corruption? (here’s a good little true story – once, in early 2000′s, i donated i think $20 or $50 to i believe sarvodaya & they wrote back saying that the money was used to buy a milk cow for a poor family. my brother & friends thought that was awesome, also the letter made my day – even though i did not try to verify the contents/truth of the letter

Another idea, along the same lines, that I’ve mentioned in passing a couple of times in these forums is a SL diaspora bank. Something like Grameen, except the funds will come from the Western & elsewhere SL diaspora & will be used to assist SLs in Lanka & the diaspora (not everyone who emigrates to the west “makes it”, as we know, & needs help – specially at first). Anyway, such a thing would also need to be more than 100% corruption free.

Also, for the SL diaspora – specially the .5, 1.5, & 2nd gen & beyond to help SL out, people in SL would have to approach the diaspora openly, not as some kind of a front for a Western Conspiracy to take over SL – as some paranoid Lankans do (by the way, Western Conspiracy would be a great name for a Sri Lankan punk band

This would be a difficult thing to set up, but the revenue potential for SL is staggering – I am sure SL can do a lot w/ an extra 5 billion or 10 billion or 15 billion a year that does not have unreasonable strings attached & is coming from people from the land (at one point) & their children or grandchildren. Anyway, such a collaboration between SL & it’s diaspora would require the hard core/militant types in SL to tone down their hatred of the rest of the world & approach them w/ humility & openness – not sure if people who believe in the superiority of their ancient religion & distrusts all foreigners & non-believers are capable of doing that. But I guess it does not hurt to try

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 13, 2010 @ 9:21 am

Observer,

RE:

“Let me logically lay this out to you…
We agreed science cannot explain everything!
YET, we’re asking for explanations that fall in line with science!?

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction/impossibility of this? If we accept the limitations of science then we also have to expect that those limitations won’t allow for the explanation you’re seeking… unless that is science has become WHOLE, we finally have a universal theory explaining everything in nature and universe. Which we haven’t achieved yet! Do I make sense to you now? Until then it is absolutely unreasonable to challenge the believers unless you become a believer your self by becoming an Atheist at least.”

We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc. HOWEVER, I think you are missing the meaning behind this debate – the agnostics believe that the speculative items that exist at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism, takes them out of consideration when it comes to selecting -as the main source – valuable human ideas for buliding/re-building/changing a society for the better – for the simple fact that only the believers agree & accept that the speculative items in religions may be real/actual items that have an effect on this world & universe.
In that light, it is absolutely necessary to challenge not just religous blind belief & plans put forward by the religious to use their religion as the basis for organizaing society, but also all other kinds of negative folk beliefs – racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-capitalism/anti-commerce, etc. To make things (hopefully) painfully clear, organizing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious & no-religion society (SL) under the guidelines provided by one religion (Buddhism) only & then expect it to compete & coorporate with countries & people who have set up their societies with an openess that allows both the religious & the secular to contribute well to society (the west, etc.) is not a great plan. It will result in more of what Sri Lanka has been able to deliver since ’48 – poverty & unrest. The most successful countries in the world, also the most desirable countries in the world (due to the fact that they are peaceful w. in their boundaries at least & successful) use a national development & maintanance formula that allows for both the existence of religions/followers & the existence of a vibrant secular/non-religious communities/people. Each side functions as a check on the excesses of the other side. This would be a good formula/approach for SL to take a long & deep look at.

Anyway, back to your point – religions are merely a set of human ideas organized & interperted & lived out in a certain way – thus, they are not sacred/not-off limits to inquiry by other humans. When you do allow things to be off limits, you will end up with, most likely, tyranny.

Or, to put it another way, would you like to move to an ultra-conservative muslim country? (a place where questioning religion may result in your death) :: [of course, if you are an ultra-conservative muslim, then that question will not work as support for my argument, so, hopefully you are not ]
- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 13, 2010 @ 10:02 am

OK SomewhatD, post re: “Sri Lankan diaspora helping Sri Lanka w/ $s” idea has been created:

http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-billion-s-year-or-more-to-sri-lanka.html

Let’s start developing it – list out some things to think about when tackling such a project. Will do same (comment at my blog’s comments section, once we have thought the idea through I may write & submit an article about subject to Groundviews). Also, all interested folks are welcome to comment/contribute ideas.

- S

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 13, 2010 @ 11:33 am

Dear Citizen,

You said: “Do we follow what the Americans did in Iraq – shock and awe those ‘deluded’ Buddhist friends by doing all the thinking for them and delivering a crucial blow or reason to undermine key aspects of their faith?

“Do we instead carry our a war of attrition for thirty years for our secular state?”

Nicely put. I understand your point. It’s certainly something to think about. My personal take on it, is that different approaches have their uses. The type of pugnacious approach I and a few others subscribe to will rattle a few people who have hitherto not bothered to question their convictions. Merely pointing out the correct, “Buddhist way” of doing things will not get the message across that Buddhism is not some indisputable truth in the first place and that a more broad-minded approach is required. Of course, it will admittedly put those who think SL Buddhism is the last word on truth – like our unfuriated Mr. Yapa here – on the warpath.

On the other hand, your type of gentle approach will doubtless be more effective at persuading those who are already not amenable to questioning their beliefs. It will hopefully convince them that they should respect the beliefs of others also. In fact, your type of approach might be made doubly effective with those who have started despising mine.

I might be mistaken here, but I believe this is how the strangle hold of the church was undermined. There were those who were strongly critical and those who were gently persuasive. In the end, people who were already oppressed and disgusted by the state Christianity was in started questioning it.

BTW, I say SL Buddhism – because the Buddha’s own gentle and humble approach is a far cry from the “we are so damn superior, everyone with half-a-brain ought to be a Theravada Buddhist” kind of attitude espoused by certain Buddhists. Sorry, that holier-than-thou position is reserved for agnostics and atheists

I’m more than happy to be persuaded otherwise, this is just my current take on it. I’m especially interested in why you said: “Especially in matters of faith, I have found it difficult and dangerous to try to move people by undermining their beliefs.” There’s no doubt that it’s dangerous. Faith is the absence of reason after all. But how do you get across the message that we just don’t believe in their faith and that it is not reasonable to impose some arbitrary belief on others?

cheers,
/SD

Off the Cuff said,

May 13, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

You question my statement.…
“But it is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”
You say
“By this you mean that we have a Buddhist Constitution?”

No Sir the English meaning is exactly what my statement says. It is ALREADY a PART of the Constitution.

Its not about a Buddhist Constitution. Please read my post of May 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am to SomewhatDisgusted if you want to know what a Buddhist Constitution would be like.

I can quote the SL Constitution and provide references to support what I have stated.

If you doubt what I say read the SL Constitution and reproduce anything that you see in the Constitution that is contrary to my statement.

Why is it that you have so much difficulty with the English Language and regularly try to FOIST your own lopsided views on others?

The rest of your post is an Argument between your own conflicting views a sort of Jekyll and Hyde argument that I am not involved in. Hence no reply is necessary.

Base your questions on what I write not on your own speculation that you are trying to foist on others.

This is a response to your post of May 13, 2010 @ 2:03 am

Off the Cuff said,

May 13, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

Dear Yapa,

Thank you for your comments. I do value them.

Remember that we have an Audience other than those who post on the thread. This should be our target audience and I continually strive to reach this Silent majority.

Though my posts are mostly addressed to the posters as I try to address questions posted by them, I do not have any interest in trying to convince any of them to the Buddhist view point. If that happens as it sometimes does, its good but even if it doesn’t its of no consequence.

Just present the facts as logically and as concisely as possible. It will get through to the intelligent reader, who is the main target.

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

A Matter of Faith
——————

I recommend – everyone should read Citizen’s article
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/02/02/a-matter-of-faith/

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

OTC,

Scientist?
———–

You are accusing me of being a scientist rather unfairly, perhaps by association? Remember I mentioned Uri Geller bending spoons as an example of a ‘real actual happening thing which many people saw’ that even he could not explain.

As I said, the challenge was to Mr Yapa who chose to bring in science to authenticate Buddhism.

I do believe (as scientists generally do) that what we know is TINY compared with what we don’t know. Let’s not quibble on that because we both agree on that- as do Sujewa and SD.

What I AM saying is, the BASIS on which the pronouncements of the Buddha of the 2nd Kind are accepted needs to be explored before we can decide whether there is a case to answer (ie. if there is a case to answer then the Universities of SL will pump in funding to research karma, rebirth, nirvana – which I don’t think they are doing at the moment).

The Buddha of the 2nd Kind = the omniscient incarnation of Siddharta Gautama.

There are those who believe he was omniscient. That’s Ok for them.

There are those who are NOT convinced that ANY human can become omniscient. Such people (sceptics) do not believe in fantastic visions seen by any human claiming to be ‘omniscient’. (they are dismissed as con men, or mad people, or on drugs)

So OTC, this is nothing at all to do with science – EXCEPT when the believers of ‘the omniscient Siddharta Gautama’ introduce the often-heard claim that ‘science has already proved what the Buddha saw 2,500 years ago. Therefore that is proof that he was omniscient, and therefore we should swallow the whole package (including SL is the promised land for Sinhala-Buddhists as decreed in the Mahawansa)’.

Hey, there are dozens of books written about the truth in Nostradamus’s prophecies too. Was he omniscient? Same argument, innit?

OTC, it does not have to be scientists. You can gather together a team of non-scientist Buddhist monks (with the funding from the Buddha Sasana Ministry) who can setup a controlled experiment.

It may go like this …

Round up 20 volunteers. Say young boys and girls. Divide then into 2 groups.

Group A is told to visit the temple every poya day, chant pirith, take sil, follow the middle path, not get involved in debates like this etc.

Group B is told never to visit the temple, do convert to Christianity, drink beer, take part in society normally, compete, try and excel in their chosen field, dance when they feel like etc.

Now follow up on the 2 Groups (1) whether they are reborn and (2) what they are reborn as.

If you or the monks can carry out that study, and if the results are positive, then we can conclude that karma, rebirth, nirvana ARE real things in the world.

OTC, do you agree?

(note that the word ‘science’ has NOT been used at all in this propsed experiment)

PS: I will help you set this up if you need me to.

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

Citizen,

“Especially in matters of faith, I have found it difficult and dangerous to try to move people by undermining their beliefs.”

The problem we have in SL is not dissimilar to the problem with the Muslim world today. We are dealing with a mentality of 800 years ago in a world that is very different now. If the people with this mentality appropriate for that age LIVED IN THAT AGE there is no problem, or if they live in isolation from the rest of the world.

It is when they come face to face with the 21st century that we have a major conflict.

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

OTC,

“But it (Buddhism) is already a part of the Constitution and hence the State.”

Yes I understood what you meant by that bizarre statement. Which is why I said ‘but that is the same as saying Christianity is part of GOSL because there are MP’s of the Christian faith in parliament’.

The words ‘tenuous’, ‘remote’, ‘far-fetched’ is what I am getting at.

Observer said,

May 13, 2010 @ 6:32 pm

Sujeewa,

We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc.

Enlightenment is a state of mind? How are you going to video tape that???

HOWEVER, I think you are missing the meaning behind this debate – the agnostics believe that the speculative items that exist at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism, takes them out of consideration when it comes to selecting -as the main source – valuable human ideas for buliding/re-building/changing a society for the better – for the simple fact that only the believers agree & accept that the speculative items in religions may be real/actual items that have an effect on this world & universe.
In that light, it is absolutely necessary to challenge not just religous blind belief

hang on.. i don’t think all the religious people follow with blind faith. there are lots of intelligent people out there, even more than us agnostic folk who believe in religions. clearly they see something we don’t? i think it’s rather brash what you’re implying.

& plans put forward by the religious to use their religion as the basis for organizaing society, but also all other kinds of negative folk beliefs – racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-capitalism/anti-commerce, etc.

To make things (hopefully) painfully clear, organizing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious & no-religion society (SL) under the guidelines provided by one religion (Buddhism) only & then expect it to compete & coorporate with countries & people who have set up their societies with an openess that allows both the religious & the secular to contribute well to society (the west, etc.) is not a great plan.

So who is planning this in Sri Lanka? I can hardly see a day religious extremists rule Sri Lanka. If you’re thinking the likes of JHU then you can forget about it…

It will result in more of what Sri Lanka has been able to deliver since ‘48 – poverty & unrest. The most successful countries in the world, also the most desirable countries in the world (due to the fact that they are peaceful w. in their boundaries at least & successful) use a national development & maintanance formula that allows for both the existence of religions/followers & the existence of a vibrant secular/non-religious communities/people. Each side functions as a check on the excesses of the other side. This would be a good formula/approach for SL to take a long & deep look at.

Sujeewa, I have my own reservations about the successful countries. Slavery and Colonial subjugation comes to my mind. Had the Asians plundered the 7 seas, then Asia might have been the rich block today.. just saying… But I won’t go there today!

Anyway, back to your point – religions are merely a set of human ideas organized & interperted & lived out in a certain way – thus, they are not sacred/not-off limits to inquiry by other humans. When you do allow things to be off limits, you will end up with, most likely, tyranny.

Somethings need to be sacred IMHO. For instance what if I started digging into your mother? She maybe not a saint in reality but she is a saint to you, no matter how many flaws she may have (just being hypothetical!!!). You clearly won’t appreciate that.
Using similar logic, sure religions aren’t sacred to us because we see it in a different light. But to the believers it is as mother.

Or, to put it another way, would you like to move to an ultra-conservative muslim country? (a place where questioning religion may result in your death) :: [of course, if you are an ultra-conservative muslim, then that question will not work as support for my argument, so, hopefully you are not ]
- S

If you make a compelling case that Sharia law is not necessary for going to a heaven filled with virgins then they might actually thank you for that.

Anyway Sujeewa, being an agnostic doesn’t at all give anyone a moral higher ground than a religious person. The tone of your arguments always come across that you feel that agnostics are somehow morally superior. I disagree with that. Some of the greatest people who have served humanity well are quite religious people.. like mother Theresa. I don’t think we need to question what they perceive to be the truth. We should worry about our own quest for finding what we feel is the truth.

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

Observer,

I wrote earlier that no baby is born with bias towards any religion. Every baby is born agnostic.

Religious brainwashing (and racial prejudice) is acquired in the early years – well, not acquired but somewhat forced upon. This process, in my view, limits an individual’s capacity to think rationally, not further it. (so they cannot ‘run away’ into some other way of thinking, or free-thinking god forbid!). Dickie Dawkins (pbuh) in ‘The God Delusion’ referred to this as the most common form of child abuse, for this reason – making children grow up to be humans of reduced capacity that cannot consider alternative points of view. The key point I’m making is, the child has NO choice in the matter! What would you say if we ritually cut off the left leg of our children sometime before they reach the age of 6? (so they cannot run away physically?)

The effect is the same.

I see your point about ‘the mother’. Yes, I too have concerns about this whenever I get drawn into a discussion on religion. HOWEVER, this comes about only because of the ‘child abuse’ they have suffered referred to above. As you can see from some of the emotion expressed by the believers in this thread there is little we can do about adults. But we can save the children.

We can save the next generation. Let’s at least try.

(I hope my comment also answers your piece to Sujewa on ‘agnostics’ taking the higher moral ground. All I can say is, personally I have greater confidence in those who have NOT had their thinking faculties restricted by childhood conditioning – forced limitations. I have greater confidence in people who say ‘sorry, I don’t know’ – agnostics – than those that have absolute confidence in something they have no way of verifying).

BalangodaMan said,

May 13, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

Observer,

“than those that have absolute confidence in something they have no way of verifying.” (my comment)

I am reminded of the numerous emails I get forwarded to me about ‘Microsoft will pay $25,000 if you use IE’ or ‘Nokia will pay for your child’s private education if you forward this email on to all your friends’. You know what I mean …

Does any intelligent person pass these on? Why don’t they check by Googling or Snopes before they pass these lies on to people who trust them? What do you think of people who send these to you?

Yes, I thought so.

So, why do we condone the same thing when it is adults passing on unverified fantastic (religious) sales messages to their unsuspecting children who trust them?

yapa said,

May 13, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

SomewhatDisgusted said,

Dear All;

SomewhatDisgusted on May 13, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
……………………….
Dear Mr. Yapa

You said: “Is this not a total total lie you are using for popular vote.

“Actually, I think most Sinhalese and Tamil people are pretty harmless.”

Definitely that harmlessness killed about 200,000 people of this country since 1971.”

No Mr. Yapa, this is the truth. I’m sure you are trying to say that most of the Sinhalese are bloody cads. I disagree. Had all the Sinhalese been bloody cads, way more than 3000 Tamils would have died in ‘83.

…………………………………..

Please see, this man’s audacity. Do the first three statements of mine imply the the forth sentence (written by him). He replaces those three sentences by his sentence, which can be very easily used to tarnish me. But please see first three sentences cannot be used that way.

This man can not get rid of his unethical behaviour.

“Kiri diyeni deviyath anguru sudu wana kalek num neth!

(Anyway) Thanks!

yapa said,

May 13, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

Three Blind Mice = two jokers + one utterly dishonest man

This is the most important conclusion I arrived at in this long discussion. They are also determined not to be convinced by anything and anybody.

yapa said,

May 13, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

Dear Citizen;

["Anyway, never mind what the Buddha said, I know you don’t follow his words anyway. The problem with your logic Mr. Yapa, is displayed when you consistently evade BalangodaMan’s question: “would you be just as convinced of the ‘truth’ of your religion, Buddhism, if you (with your capacity for scrutiny and analysis) were born in Riyadh, in a Muslim country, as a Muslim person?”.]

Don’t try to be haste in making conclusions. Wrong decisions and conclusions could be fatal.

You must have heard;

There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger

Thanks!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 14, 2010 @ 12:18 am

Dear Burning Issue,

I agree with pretty much everything you said on May 13, 2010 @ 12:26 am.

“The Tamils did not establish Hindu temples as a prelude to them settling in the southern areas; I will stand corrected, if one were to prove me wrong on this.”

I agree. But try explaining that to those who perceive things from the no. 2 perspective I mentioned. Prejudice, solidified through selective thinking, is a hard thing to deal with. We are dealing with coarse reasoning on all sides that does no justice to the complexity of this problem.

There is however, one concept that no human being living in the 21st century with any form of education and any sense of justice could protest against and expect to win on reasonable grounds. That is a demand for equal rights. People can protest against Eelams. They may even be able to protest against devolution. But one thing no thinking person can continue to challenge and not be ashamed to deny is a demand for equal rights. History shows that sooner or later, given a reasonably educated populace, such justice can be achieved. What we need to do is to work towards making that inevitable justice occur, through education and opinion building as opposed to violence and mayhem. (I would point out that Sinhala Only being rolled back, Tamil being made a national language etc. are signs that such justice is indeed undeniable)

“I know it is too soon to expect from Sri Lanka for now, but we need to build consensus for this to happen in the future.”

I agree. Buddhism has been given a free ride for far too long – since few seem to have questioned it – to the point where there are people who fancy that it’s an absolute truth! whaaaaat???? Where do you get these kind of self-assuredly clueless people from?

I would like to comment on your latest post soon, which will definitely take us in a more fruitful direction – religion and state.

cheers.
/SD

Off the Cuff said,

May 14, 2010 @ 1:14 am

Dear BurningIssue,

Hello old friend, I believe you have misinterpreted what I stated. My statement refers to the Constitution. Yours refer to Religion.

My statement
What I don’t understand is how Buddhism being in the Constitution “CURTAILS” or otherwise restrict others

Your statement
OTC says that it is Buddhism that allows free practice of all other religions in Sri Lanka.

They are not one and the same.

The Constitutional Clause that provides a protected status to Buddhism has a proviso that requires ALL religions be guaranteed the simultaneous freedom of being practiced without any obstruction. Hence there is absolutely no room for the State to provide protection to Buddhism without providing religious freedom simultaneously.

Therefore the freedom to practice a minority religion has not been curtailed in any way.

“Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity”

They are not alike. The first does not entertain a Creator God. The other three does.

When I discuss Buddhism, I always refer to the Buddha’s teaching not to corruptions of it. I believe you would also refer to Hinduism proper and not to corruptions of it.

You cannot discuss religion by discussing corrupted interpretations

Off the Cuff said,

May 14, 2010 @ 2:19 am

Dear Observer,

“Far as I understand the vacuum of space is infinite. Therefore you cannot measure the size and it doesn’t make sense to say space changes size”

I mentioned shape not size. Here is an example. Beyond the Earth’s atmosphere is a Vacuum. The Earth moves at speed around the Sun. In front of the orbital path and behind the Orbital path is a Vacuum. As the Earth moves forward a space which was vacuum a moment ago gets filled by the Earth hence it no longer is a vacuum. At the same time the space that was occupied by the Earth a moment ago has now become a vacuum as the Earth has vacated that space. This is why I stated even the empty space changes shape. This is similar to a fish moving in water. The fish displaces the water as it moves changing the shape of the water. The space occupied by the fish moves.

“Energy is something that converts from one form to another ”

I don’t know but that looks to me like impermanence.

True there are moments of absolute joy but that joy is followed by Dukkha, the disappointment that comes when the joy is no more. If joy is the crest of a wave then Dukkha is the valley, one follows the other like a shadow.

Good question about the Sages. I don’t know the answer but I sure wish that Science was mature during the Buddha’s time. Then Science could have questioned the Buddha himself which would have provided answers either way.

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 6:02 am

Dear Citizen;

You say:

[@Mr Yapa: I did not mean to hurt or pass judgement on you and whether or not you agree with my views is of little consequence in this forum. I was merely stating the fact that your arguments bore little -if any- substance for intellectual reflection and i have not seen anything that made me change my mind. Don’t feel condemed by that however – what i or anyone else thinks should not matter to you if you are assured in your own faith.]

Really, I wanted to post the comment I made on May 13, 2010 @ 11:17 pm with regard to your comment above. I will repeat it.

Hasty conclusions and decisions could be fatal. You must have heard the following;

There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger

Thanks!

Doubtful said,

May 14, 2010 @ 10:47 am

If life was a ride in the cosmic sphere
And i am reborn, only to be thrown back here
I hope Mr. Yapa would have done a lot of ‘ping’
Enough to be reborn as a sentient being

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 14, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Everyone (specially the agnostics),

Found an interesting document on the web while doing research for this conversation/debate – Buddhist Nationalism and Religious Violence in Sri Lanka
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm

From the document:

“One incident from the Mahāvamsa (chap. 19) demonstrates the ethnic and religious harmony that existed during the reign of King Devanamtissa (247-207 BCE), who introduced Buddhism to the island. The chapter begins with an elaborate description of the transport of the Bodhi tree from King Ashoka in India and its arrival in the northern port of Jubukola. There a brahmin priest named Tivakka was one of the first to worship the holy tree. Two weeks later it arrived in the capital city of Anuradhapura and the tree miraculously sprouted 32 saplings. One was given to Tivakka to plant in his own town, and two others were given to kśatriyas in the north. This demonstrates that not only was there ethnic harmony, but Hindus and Buddhists, as many still do today in India and Nepal, worshiped together honoring common sacred sites and things.

The next major event is the campaign of King Dutthagamani (161-137 BCE) that led to the unification of the island under this Buddhist king. The Dīpavamsa (18.50-54), the earliest chronicle from the 4th Century CE, portrays the Tamil king Elara as a just ruler and there appear to be no anti-Buddhist allegations against him. The fact that Dutthagamani starts from the periphery of power in the south and must fight 32 other provincial rulers, some of them presumably Buddhists, on his way north indicates that the actual motivations for Dutthagamani’s campaign could not have been primarily religious. The 1912 English version of the Mahāvamsa contains an unfortunate mistranslation that moves a Buddhist relic from the royal scepter to Dutthagamani’s spear and has given Buddhist militants an illicit, but even stronger justification for Buddhist warfare.[21]

While the Dīpavamsa contains only 13 stanzas about Dutthagamani, more than half the Mahāvamsa is devoted to the famous king. The authors are determined to glorify Dutthagamani and they design an edifying narrative framework based on the story of Aśoka. The number of provincial rulers who resisted Dutthagamani is obviously exaggerated and most likely is drawn from the 32 opponents of Aśoka. But the most significant similarity to Aśoka is the post-battle malaise that Dutthagamani suffers over the great number of Tamil causalities. In chapter 25, a group of arhats come to console the grieving king and report a remarkable calculation concerning those killed in the war. According to the wise monks, only one enemy soldier had taken full refuge in the Dharma and another had embraced only the Five Precepts. This means that there had been only one and a half real persons killed among thousands of causalities. This demonstrates that there has been substantial anti-Tamil sentiment for centuries and it provides ready fodder for contemporary Sinhalese propangandists. Even the great Buddhist scholar Wapola Rahula uses this incident without questioning its veracity in his defense of Sinhalese nationalism.[22] ”

So, if para 1 is true, we basically have an island full of Hindus (most likely) – Sinhala speaking Hindus, & then Buddhism is introduced to them, many convert, some do not, & centuries later, after the British concept of race is introduced to the island, the Buddhists begin to view themselves as a separate race than their non-Buddhist fellow country men & women (Tamils), though all are essentially the same type of people – and were outwardly so at point of introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka – now, post 1948, we have two groups of people who identify themselves as two different races & go to war with each other. Am I reading this right? I am sure many comments will follow

Regarding para 2 & 3 quoted, hopefully with the end of the most recent Sinhala-Tamil war in ’09, we won’t see another anytime soon (or perhaps never again, let’s hope). So, even though we are the same basic people, looks like the Sinhalese and the Tamils in SL have been fighting each other for a long time (if the paras quoted are true).

How does this relate to the topic at hand – the real-ness of k,r,n? Since K,R,N are not real/are speculative items, it will be difficult to start wars over protecting an absolute truth in SL (if the word gets out about the true nature of K,R,N that is, & if people in SL were to behave reasonably Anyway, yup, kind of off topic, but, hopefully this shows -at least a little – why the agnostics here are adamant that proof be provided before we accept K,R,N as real things – since politcs, war, & death, & minority rights & ultimately peace for all – are bound with Buddhism, historically, in SL.

- S

BalangodaMan said,

May 14, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

“In the other hand” is a cross between “In contrast” and “On the other hand”. Mixed up, just like us in SL.

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Dear All;

Sujewa Ekanayake says;

[We (the agnostics) are not asking for an explanation/demonstration as true/real, of karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism via scientific means only. There are other ways to show that something is real: observation by humans, video tape, audio tape, etc.]

My God! I can’t stop laughing!

Please see the narrow thinking of this man. What is more salient is he is not ashamed to say these in public forums, that much is his ignorance.

One of my friend told me a story. It goes like this;

He says there was an insane man in his village who used to sit and pass his time on a culvert. After staying seated for some time on the culvert, all of a sudden he stands up starts walking around murmuring something. Do you know what he was murmuring in Sinhala?

“Salli thiyenawanum, lajja nethnum karanna beri deyak ne…////

(If you have money, and don’t have shame, nothing is impossible for you….////)

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

Dear All;

I was trying to figure out the behaviour of three blind mice when a difficult question was asked.

Can you remember;

1. Somewhat(Totally)Dishonest blind man runs away from the forum for months to come back when the incident is forgotten with a victors song. He mis-interpret things and describes them to tarnish others. He behave as an “all knower”, but separates kasippu using physical methods. He tries to teach Science to all but have never learned. So much of his audacity.

2. “Sounds good” blind man act as a insane man in front of a hard question, and talks entirely irrelevant things. He is shameless to utter any nonsense for any issue in any deep subject.

3. Balangoda blind man was not that cunning at the beginning, except his lack of knowledge, however now corrupted to the core now with the association of “Apayagami Mithra”. Now he is also behaving with the sole intention of trying to make what coming randomly into his mind, true. Several time he acted like a insane man when asked difficult questions. As the (2) above, he is also not hesitant to tell anything comes to his mind as an answer to any question. This is a very easy way of answering questions.

However, the Buddha and olden day intelligent men have seen such people and such answers and arguments before and they have named them as “amaravikkhepavada”. Here “amara” is slimy fish called “Anda” in Sinhala. If caught by hand this fish easily slip away due to its slipperiness. Amaravikkhevapada is such answers,and tactics that let the person slip away from the question.

According to Buddhism there are four types of amaravikkhepavada.

1. The person who slips away from a direct question such as “Is this A, not A or anything else, telling some irrelevant thing.

2.He who does not answer, just because it incurs him a loss.

3. He who does not answer, in fear of insults from the wise.

4. Ignorant, that answers the way “it is neither this nor that etc…. etc….”

Can somebody give more details about this “amaravikkhepavada” and tell which blind man of above belong to which category of above.

Thanks!.

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Dear All;

We are very fortunate to have some genius born in Sri Lanka who would soon bring fame to our motherland. These three nerds are so clever that they can understand Modern Science including Quantum Physics and Relativity, Modern Philosophy and a religion that has been a centre of discussion and respect for centuries:Buddhism, even without studying them a bit. They reject knowledge in them like “karapincha natu” with their in born wisdom, that does not need any investigation or explorations. Such subjects are common knowledge to them that they give all sorts of answers to the issues arisen in these subjects without any hesitation. Even “The Principle Of Uncertainty” is certain to them give prompt answers to any issue in the principle. They are gifted with such wisdom that they are capable of giving judgments on everything starting from Gynecology to Black holes, off hand.

You are great assets to our country. Hail our Geniuses.

Thanks!

BalangodaMan said,

May 14, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

OTC,

To add to how Sujewa answered your following statement …

(re. Buddhism is a faith just like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity)
You said “They are not alike. The first does not entertain a Creator God. The other three does.”

And a Muslim would say “Islam is not like Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism because it is the last word from Allah, and none of the other religions are it.”

And a Christian would say “Christianity is not like Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam because Jesus was the Son of God (like he said) and the other religions do not know that”.

And if it could speak my car would say “Me am not like any other car down da road because me is yellow and nun of the other cars is”. (well, it never learned proper English anyway!)

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

“Did you not answer this question because of reason no. 2 or reason no. 3 above?”

Yes, Off hand genius/ Scientist.

Thanks!

wijayapala said,

May 14, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

Burning_Issue,

What do my statements on Japan have anything to do with the Tamils not being a threat to Buddhism and/or Sinhalese? The Tamils may not be a threat, but Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are a different story.

And you did not answer my basic question- is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?

yapa said,

May 14, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

correction…..

Why don’t we through our “Hanamitiya”.

Above should change as “Why don’t we throw away our “Hanamitiya”.

Thanks!

BalangodaMan said,

May 15, 2010 @ 1:16 am

Wijayapala, you asked … May 14, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

“is it possible to build a common nation that lacks a common understanding of Sri Lankan history?”

Hey W, it has been well researched and found that some of the SL history on which we rest our cherished chauvinism is steeped in distortion. The article referenced by Sujewa is a good place to start, if you have an interest in this check out …
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm

The trouble is, in SL you cannot openly discuss or research these distortions.

Compare this. The Turin Shroud, which was and still is revered as the cloth on which Jesus’s body was wrapped was found to be a 14th century fake. This was possible to research and publish in the open society of the West (although that has not taken anything away from the devoteed who still worship it).

In SL, any chance similar research can be done on the Sacred Tooth Relic in Kandy? Apparently the entire print run of an SL newpaper that published an article questioning its authenticity was ordered to be destroyed.

The Mahawansa was discovered in 1822 by the British. We Sinhalese assume that it was venerated or even generally known about by the inhabitants of SL for 2,000 years. Wrong! If it’s contents had not supported the nationalist-protestant Sinhala-Buddhist movement of the 1880s we will not know about it even now. (it was translated by Wilhelm Geiger in 1912)

We assume that our cherished ruins of Anuradhapura and Pollonnaruwa stood for 1,000+ years in the shiny splendor that we see it in today? Wrong! These ruins were abandoned and hidden in the jungle for 800 years. Nobody in SL cared about it. They were rediscovered by the British (I bet Mr Yapa you cannot name the British explorer who made the discovery). Of course, the forest monks knew it was there (but see below about the Order of Monks). An eye witness account states that ‘you could not see twenty yards in front of you” – the jungle was so thick.

Even after the rediscovery the locals had no interests in clearing the jungle – for some 70 years! The British rulers then ordered it to be cleared. About a decade later Anagarika Dharmapala successfully obtained agreement from the British rulers that the archaeological findings will stay in Lanka and open for worship. He formed the Maha Bodhi Society to protect it, and of course the ruins greatly supported the Sinhala-Buddhist ‘brand’ that he was promoting.

Today, we also think that the order of monks in SL remained unbroken since 2,300 years ago. Wrong! The only monks since the Chola invasion (11th century) lived in the forest. When we think of monks we think of those in temples in the cities who chant pirith in our homes and have ‘dhana’. It wasn’t until hundreds of years later that the King decided to re-introduce the order of monks but there were no monks in Lanka to ordain them. So they imported an Order from Siam.

You can find the citations by Googling.

I think it is important to preserve our cherished heritage. However, it should not be allowed to be distorted for political reasons, or for any reason.

Now, DNA evidence from the Human Genome project is throwing old theories about race and migration straight out the window (all over the world). I have already mentioned the Stanford U research on we Sinhala people (75% of the ancestors of every one of us lived in South India up to 5,000 years ago. That includes you Mr Yapa. We have just ended a 25 year war against our own brothers!).

The big fear now is, what archaeological treasures and evidence will be found in the North? What if the archaeologists find civilisation advanced for its time in the North of SL dating to 1,000 BC or more ? (this is very probable, given time)

You see Wijayapala, I FULLY endorse your imperative that we have “a common understanding of Sri Lankan history”. But can we do that with the real history please? (we can learn a lot from why we distorted it)

BalangodaMan said,

May 15, 2010 @ 2:00 am

Burning_Issue,

“It is a matter for the Sinhala Buddhist intellectuals to rectify this situation; the Tamils are helpless in this endeavour.”

Not sure if I’m an intellectual (Mr Yapa says I’m not) but I have done my bit above

BalangodaMan said,

May 15, 2010 @ 3:51 am

OTC,

“It looks as if you are blaming Buddhism for your Fathers Death. Buddha is no God. He cannot grant you or your mother any favours. So it was your family’s mistake, asking for anything from him, as you were certain to be disappointed. If you or your family knew Buddhism you would not have asked favours from him. He died long ago, never to be reborn again.”

LOL! Actually my late father would have been the first to point out the absurdity of leading in a procession of monks into a hospital room to chant pirith. But that does not top the surrounding family from trying to sneak them in disguised as attendants!

I could dismiss my family as eccentric in their religious disposition, but no – I think they are typical in SL. It is no wonder though. The monks in the local temple actually promote the idea that worship is necessary to fix life’s crises, which includes worshipping the monks, that it passes merit to dead relatives and so on. This is an easy sell because they are preaching exactly what the audiences want to hear and want – ie. a quick fix.

Still, I don’t know what the disagreement is. Isn’t it a ‘given’ that it is customary to give offerings before any auspicious event? So, why? To whom?

(are we on the same planet?)

::

The argument about science – highly irrelevant. The often heard expression “science doesn’t know everything” indicates a lack of understanding of what ‘science’ means. It is (in my books anyway) the study of things to find out things about them (funny thing is that’s what Dhamma is supposed to mean also). By definition ‘science’ knows (and will always know) much much LESS than it doesn’t know. But what it knows it can explain why it thinks what it knows, and why it rejects some things as myth where the evidence shows that it is (Galileo, Darwin). It does not mean that science can disprove what it does not know.

You will have a hard time arguing against critics of religion if the only strategy you have is to knock science.

yapa said,

May 15, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Dear Off the Cuff;

Addressing BalangodaMan you said;

“You don’t do a critical analysis. You FABRICATE Canards.

Not only him, “Sounds Good”BalangodaMan is also unfamiliar with such accepted methodologies of discussion. They utter what comes to their petty minds in random basis without fear or shame in ignorance. They make empty noises to disrupt the ideas put forward by others they don’t like, they act in connivance with ill will to undermine others’ ideas in an unfair way, they are not familiar with or have knowledge to engage in such a fair debate. These two ignorant guys were taken for a ride by the “dishonest” by his false appreciations and motivations and they act like puppets when the strings are pulled. Dishonest too avoid critical analyzes wit audacity, not by ignorance like these two blind men uses his unethical means to reach his ill planned ends.

Dear Off the Cuff;

Do not see it as his fault. It is his ignorance.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 15, 2010 @ 8:22 am

Dear All;

Burning_Issue says;

[if the Sinhalese were to know and accept that they are largely made up of Dravidian stock;]

See this man’s ignorance and audacity. This man does not know the issue is not on “RACE” but on “ETHNICITY”. Sinhalese are Sinhalese not due to its race or races, but due to its inherent culture. Everybody knows that “Sinhalese race” is a mixture of many races, including natives lived in pre Vijajaya era, Aryans, Tamils, Arabs, Portugese, Dutch, English,….erc…etc…, but Sinhalese Nation or Sinhalese ethnicity is a Single entity only. It does not contain Tamil race or British race or Aryan race or native race. It consists of a single ethnicity formed with the all absorbed races,after accepting Sinhalese culture. There are no more Tamils in Sihala ethnicity, no more Britishes in Sinhala ethnicity, no more natives in Sinhala ethnicity. All have become one Sinhalese nation once it accepted common norms and values.

As you have said many Tamils have become “Sinhalese” in this country and they never complain of ill treatments or whatever discrimination towards them. They never think any more that they are Tamils. They may be Tamils in race, but no one cares about such differences in Sinhalese Society and they are equal partners.

When Tamils settle down in Canada they would like to become Canadians, in Britain, Britishers, in USA, Americans, but in Sri Lanka they are hesitant to be so. They want a separate piece of cake here.

I have no right to suggest Tamils to assimilate into the the main stream. But I feel, if they did so these unfortunate things wouldn’t have happened.

As we don’t have wisdom we fight in ignorance. Avijja is the the main root cause of any evil thing.

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 15, 2010 @ 9:23 am

Dear Doubtful;

RE: Your poem posted on May 14, 2010 @ 10:47 am

Thanks for your philosophical poem. I really love it.

Thanks!

Dasa Maha Yoda said,

May 15, 2010 @ 9:52 am

Anyone criticizing Sinhalese people or their only true religion Buddhism is a traitor. In the current regime, all such traitors will be punished with death. Judicially or extra-judicially. This is the Sinhala Buddhist island and agnostics and other critics are not welcome here. Stay off in your safe havens and dare not return to Mother Lanka!

Libertad said,

May 15, 2010 @ 11:12 am

I wonder where this argument is heading, because at the end of it, everyone seems stuck to their beliefs or non-beliefs in the case of the agnostics and it’s going to stay that way.

One thing i find odd is how buddhists treat buddhism as a religion, when i suppose, it’s ‘founder’ siddartha gautama intended it to be a philosophy he cooked up to end suffering and exit the ‘cycle of life’ (whatever that is).

@dasa maha yoda: there is nothing wrong with people having an opinion different from your own, its a basic human right. Srilanka is only a country where Sinhala Buddhist people make the majority and because of that it is governed by some of those principles but the constitution supports co-existence of the different religions in the country, so you have no right to tell agnostics that they aren’t welcome in their own country.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 15, 2010 @ 11:56 am

Dear Observer,

“Alright if nothing is sacred is the path you want to adhere to let’s celebrate that!”

Once again, your argument is an appeal to emotion based on an unsuitable comparison. You have not given a single reason as to why religion ought to be held sacred.

Child abuse is an illegal act against a defenseless child.

Religion is supposed to be a view on the origin, nature and purpose of the universe. If you cannot understand the difference between taking child abuse lightly (a known reality) and taking a view on the “unknown” lightly, then we have a problem.

Saying that we can no longer question someone’s views on the unknown and must treat any odd irrational belief with slavish respect, is, to me, an absurd proposition. It means we have already found the answers to life and can no longer make any rational inquiry about it. It also means we cannot critique the destructive influence of religion on society – its divisive nature, its unfounded beliefs being foisted upon young children as the gospel truth etc. Not allowing it to be questioned is – allow me to make my own appeal to emotion which is both suitable and supported by historic fact – a one way street to the inquisition.

BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.

cheers,
/SD

Off the Cuff said,

May 15, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

You say,
“LOL! Actually my late father would have been the first to point out the absurdity of leading in a procession of monks into a hospital room to chant pirith. But that does not top the surrounding family from trying to sneak them in disguised as attendants!”

Sure your late father would then have been more educated about Buddhism to know that Buddha was not a God and that there was only ONE Buddha not three in one lifetime as you fantasize.

Pity he could not pass his knowledge on to his son who has a penchant for Pontificating on matters that he is an Ignoramus of.

You say,
“It does not mean that science can disprove what it does not know.”

Yes that is correct but you forget that the corollary is also true.
If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.

At the current point in time Science does not know anything about Rebirth though it knows something about “Premeditated Action”.

When you and Sujewa keep asking for Scientific or some such “verifiable” proof you keep conveniently forgetting the above.

If you want such Verifiable proof you have to FIRST PROVE to the Religious that the methods you are asking to be used has the Capacity or the Authority or the Maturity to dissect the Subject that you have chosen. You cannot use a spoon to empty an Ocean.

You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.

Both of you have studiously kept away from that discussion. Why? Is it because you have a hard time in doing that?

(This is re your post of May 15, 2010 @ 3:51 am)

yapa said,

May 15, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

Dear Three BalangodaMen;

Have you got any comments on my post of May 14, 2010 @ 9:30 pm? It talks about your “Hanamitiya”.

Thanks!

BalangodaMan said,

May 15, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

OTC,
your May 15, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

“there was only ONE Buddha not three”

OTC, you are reading this literally. The point I was making is, that in discussion we are often referring to 3 separate ideas of who the Buddha was (or still is in the case of Buddha of the Third Kind). Consequently we are attributing interchangable characters to quotes/teaching/phenomena. (No, I am not having a vision of 3 Buddhas like The Three Muskateers or The Three Tenors)

And you say …#
“Science … knows something about “Premeditated Action”.

Whoa!

“You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.”

Nooooooooooooo! It is Mr Yapa who says it can be proved. So it is his choice of method. We are only wanting that method to be something more than ‘FAITH’ or ‘CONVICTION’.

I don’t know why we are harping on about this if (as I think) we all agree that it is a faith and so cannot be proved by any method except FAITH. (Only Mr Yapa seems to have a problem with this I think)

Buddhism is a religion with items of faith just like all other religions. There, you can sue me!

yapa said,

May 15, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

Some Quotations from Wise Men to BalangodaMen and All Others

1.The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

2.A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 15, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

Hey B-Man,

Of course I say “yeah” to what you wrote above, re: Buddhism containing items that need to be taken on faith, cannot be proven to be real in this world.

But, on to more important things – come join the positive agnostics at my blog as we try to come up with a way to get SL out of poverty using resources of the Greater Sri Lanka (SL & diaspora):
http://newslagnostic.blogspot.com/2010/05/5-billion-s-year-or-more-to-sri-lanka.html

Of course we will keep an eye on this thread to remind the believers from time to time that their faith does contain significant items that cannot be proven as real & that Buddhism is merely a religion like all the other major religions.

- S

Off the Cuff said,

May 15, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

Dear BalangodaMan

“Nooooooooooooo! It is Mr Yapa who says it can be proved. So it is his choice of method. We are only wanting that method to be something more than ‘FAITH’ or ‘CONVICTION’. ”

Sujewa’s post of May 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am, addressed to me and others have back peddled on the demand of using science as a proof.

Pat comes the reply “There is no back peddling. The challenge has always been (read the top of the article when your memory starts to give you problems – as it often seems to do to Non believers)”

That reply to you is courtesy Sujewa who does not know whether he is coming or going. I introduced only the word “Non”

BalangodaMan said,

May 15, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

OTC,

“That reply to you is courtesy Sujewa who does not know whether he is coming or going.”

The Quantum Physicists will confirm that it is possible to be coming or going at the same time if you are travelling at the speed of light. The only other case of ‘coming and going at the same time’ I know of is an elderly gentleman down the road who sadly and unexpectedly passed away while making love to his wife.

(Like cases of rebirth where the transmigration of karma is observable) it is rare.

Off the Cuff said,

May 16, 2010 @ 12:14 am

Dear BalangodaMan,

Did you read the top of the article as Sujewa Advised?

So who wants Science to be used? The article says its the Agnostics and that includes you and Sujewa.

As I stated before If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.

If you want such Verifiable proof you have to FIRST PROVE to the Religious that the methods you are asking to be used has the Capacity or the Authority or the Maturity to dissect the Subject that you have chosen. You cannot measure the Depth of the Ocean with a Foot Ruler, can you?

You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.

Both of you have studiously kept away from that discussion. Why? Is it because you have a hard time in doing that?

Without hiding behind Yapa and wise cracking, come out and argue on your own steam.
Are you not Man enough for that?

BalangodaMan said,

May 16, 2010 @ 3:26 am

OTC,

With the greatest of respect I am both impressed AND alarmed at the strength of your religious faith.

Impressed becaused you are totally unwavering in your faith. Alarmed because the only other people I have heard of who embraced their religious faith with as much conviction were the 19 muslim men in planes I spoke about earlier.

You said …
“As I stated before If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know it cannot PROVE it either.”

OTC, if you look at the Index of this book (picked as a typical book on world religions) and other such books you will see there are hundreds of religions in the world. Science cannot prove any of them. Does that mean they are all ‘true’ until science can disprove them?

http://www.amazon.com/Compact-Guide-World-Religions-Halverson/dp/1556617046/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273959923&sr=8-30

Re. karma you said … “It’s presence in the present and the fact that the action precedes the result is one indicator of the possibility that an action in this life could result in an event in the next” …. and
“Possibly as we develop our minds further our understanding of it would grow”.

Actually our understanding of the universe and the nature of life HAS grown in the past 2,000 years. And guess what? It is not our belief in ancient theories that has grown … it is our DISBELIEF! That is why (in countries where there is more openness of mind) the proportion of normal religious believers continues to fall – while the fanatics continue to rise.

And another gem …
“Rebirth on the other hand is almost UNIVERSALLY believed.”

Universally? On which planet? ‘Universally’ down your street? Do you mean ‘rebirth’ or ‘reincarnation’? All of the research that has been cited in this thread is about reincarnation, which you say is distinctly different. Right?

In my experience, rebirth or reincarnation is not what is universally believed BUT it is what is universally desired. (Maybe everyone I know is wierd! )

(BTW do not confuse ‘belief in the afterlife’ with belief in ‘rebirth’)

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 16, 2010 @ 5:00 am

Re: agnosticism, secularism, Buddhism, & Sri Lanka:

My view, along with many others here & elsewhere, as to why “Western” countries were able to out perform Sri Lanka & many other “non-Western” countries for the last couple of hundred years, is that, the “Western” countries where religion & the state (& also mainstream life) are separate allows for greater flexibility for individuals to go after their postive goals (entrepenuerial, creative, etc.). And when millions of individuals are allowed to pursuit their interest without limitations that arise form ancient religious & or religion based cultural restrictions – new work, works, wealth, ideas (another form of wealth), practices, etc. are generated – which benefits the society & also benefits the state, & also benefits religious organizations (the followers will have more money & time to spend on religious matters).

Does or will secularizing Sri Lanka in practice (it already has a secular gov. on paper) result in Buddhism disappearing from the island? No. Most likely it will strengthen Buddhism (see the example in the US – one of the most secular countries on the planet, also the place that invented the separation of Church & State, & it is also one of the biggest Christian countries on the planet – in term of % of the population that takes part in religious life – including participating in the other major world religions), and it will create another powerful source of assistance to all Sri Lankans (this is possible, I can see Buddhist monks ministering to the needs of non-believers & believers of other faiths, specially due to the leverage they have being the largest organized religion in the country when it comes to people who need their support in dealing with other important segments of SL society). Plus, the monks will or can be if they so choose, become an independent & useful (in a political sense) segment of society -accessible to all, instead of being just another unofficial part of a Sinhala-Buddhist government (in the eyes of non-Sinhala people & non-Buddhists in SL & world wide).

In fact, what Sri Lanka can use are more independent monks in this time of great transition (ending of a 26+ year old war, etc.). There is MUCH in Sri Lanka that needs to be reformed & improved. There is also a long culture of violence in SL, also a culture where press freedoms are flimsy at best & vocal critics disappear. However, to use an old phrase – speaking truth to power – appears to be a part of the Buddhist tradtion. The Buddha himself appears to be a social reformer.

(Is there an opposing order of monks who do not agree w/ the JHU for example? If not, why not?)

Anyway, back to the point – government is a messsy affair – where compromises need to be made, and all manner of open & secret deals – including matters that deal with finance & war – are taken into account. Running the goverment according to Buddhist ideals would not be very wise (not that this is in danger of happening for real in SL, but just in case , since many other governments/the competition of SL gov do not follow/try to stick to Buddhist ideals & ethics. However, a separate – at least a part of the monks – Buddhist order that keeps both the government & the excesses of regular people in check could be very useful for SL. One of the main problems in SL, in my view, has been the lack of checks & balances on power, lack of accountability. So, the more layers of checks & balances there are, the better off SL may be.

Really, I do not see why, w/ 2000+ years of Buddhism on the island, why Sri Lanka is not the #1 country in the world for human rights. Instead it has been one of the top countries for violence, poverty, & evils of all kinds – the kinds of evils that destroy humans as oppose to protecting & nurturing them.

A Buddhist kingdom or a country that is in fact a Buddhist knigdom though on paper it may call itself a modern democracy cannot compete with secular, multi-ethnic, open societies that also have freedom of religion & freedom from religion. If Sri Lankans are interested in claiming what should have been theirs/ours many generations ago, becoming one of the top countries in the world for all manner of positive things (certainly the intelligence & drive is there – I’ve seen how SL immigrants achieve in US & elsewhere, where the frame work & freedom for individual achievement exists), then, they/we should take a serious look at separating the Temple & State in practice & also creating a secular society where religions play a role but is not the dominant force/stiffling other means of acting in the world & perceiving the world.

Anyway, after that long intro, here is an introduction to secularism as it is practiced in many “Western” countries:

“Secular society
In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are widely considered a relevant part of the political discourse in many of these countries. This contrasts with other Western countries where religious references are generally considered out-of-place in mainstream politics.

Among the first to delineate the nature of a secular society, D. L. Munby characterizes a secular society as one which:

Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.
Is not homogenous, but is pluralistic.
Is tolerant. It widens the sphere of private decision-making.
While every society must have some common aims, which implies there must be agreed on methods of problem-solving, and a common framework of law; in a secular society these are as limited as possible.
Problem solving is approached rationally, through examination of the facts. While the secular society does not set any overall aim, it helps its members realize their aims.
Is a society without any official images. Nor is there a common ideal type of behavior with universal application.
Positive Ideals behind the secular society

Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
Equality of all people.
Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.[21] ”

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

And to clarify the title of this post, agnostics are a part of the secular tradition – we are not certain about the grand claims made by the religious, however, we see that things need to get done & we keep ourselves open to all possible soultions, not just the ones endorsed from a religious perspective.

- S

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 16, 2010 @ 6:54 am

Dear OTC,

You said: “So who wants Science to be used? The article says its the Agnostics and that includes you and Sujewa.”

I am really not sure I understand. This is what Sujewa says:
“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”

So it does not limit itself to science.

This makes no sense OTC. You’ve been following this discussion throughout so I’m sure you know the background and context enough by now. Let me rephrase if there’s a problem.

List our 10 (or whatever) convincing reasons to believe in karma that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that. (Here’s a post in which it was requested. )

So far, we have been writing about everything else under the sun other than
a. Either write that list – Makes KRN a fact
b. Say that it is not possible to write that list – Makes KRN a faith (a euphemism for akaravathi shradda – or the other way around – so Mr. Yapa does not have a paroxysm)

Can the believers please choose either path A or path B?

Secondly, I don’t see why we should get sidetracked over whether it’s using science or not, when it has been repeatedly acknowledged that the dirty word “science” is not relevant. BalangodaMan wrote an entire post dissociating himself from that idea.

cheers,
/SD

Observer said,

May 16, 2010 @ 10:51 am

SomewhatDisgusted,

Religion is supposed to be a view on the origin, nature and purpose of the universe. If you cannot understand the difference between taking child abuse lightly (a known reality) and taking a view on the “unknown” lightly, then we have a problem.

Huh? Take lightly? Ok you have to not misunderstand me. I expressed my absolute anger by posting that video which quite offensively rips into the Catholic Church! I really don’t know what you’re on about here SWD. My actual intention was to show the borderline nature of it. I find such expressions satisfying for the injustices that has been done in the name of religion. But for most people it would be sacrilegious. So the whole idea was to make us think about the 2 sides. Where do you draw the line?

BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.

Yes I see what you and BalangodaMan are saying. I have very little time during weekdays and I didn’t answer BalangodaMan then because I didn’t think it was a pressing matter.

Anyway, my problem with that statement is how do you define indoctrination and brain washing? Those are quite powerful words and I think it’s a harsh term to use unless someone is in a religious cult. So I’m assuming what you really refer to hear is children being taught religion at a very young age. So I will reply with this assumption.

I personally believe religion should not be taught in school. Unless the child is specifically enrolled into a religious school by the parents choice. You have to understand, until a child has grown to become a youth, parents are their guardians and they do have a right to make choices for them. Whether it be music, sports, languages, religion, history and any other curriculum parents should and do have a say in what their child learns in early stages of their lives. If you try to tell me or most people not just religion anything that I deem worthy for my child to learn is not and equate that to abuse of my child, I would quite rightly flick you the finger and tell you to mind your own children’s business! Hopefully, I’m sure that is not what you implied here.

For example, I have a right to teach my child how to hunt if I chose to do so. If I enjoy hunting and I would like to share that experience with my child as a bonding experience, I will let him handle a gun and teach how to scout, follow a prey and take it down. Most people would cringe at the thought of letting a 13/14 year old even hold a gun and think the violence associated with that activity may have harmful effects on the child, but doesn’t mean they have a say in it! Unless there is a law against that, then I’d respect the law of the land.

To further elaborate I went to a leading Buddhist school in Sri Lanka. I have studied Buddhism formally and it used to be a very good scoring subject for me as well. Meaning I wasn’t lethargic about it. But none of that really made me believe it in entirety. The curriculum I did had nothing that would amount to indoctrination. If anything learning Buddhism in a structured manner helped me identify gaps and truly question aspects I did not quite understand or refused to take it on face value. I would encourage my children to learn any religion and see how they feel about it. It is not my wish they become agnostic just because I am. If they believe in something, the can believe. Hopefully it won’t be anything silly like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, at least after a certain age

I refuse to buy your argument completely. I have seen people from all walks of life, circumstances and backgrounds eventually figuring out the world in a rational manner. The issue here really is how religion is taught. If it is taught in an extremist way implying it is the BE ALL AND END ALL then that is absolutely wrong and would amount to brain washing. But for most children religion is part of the overall curriculum and it comes at the parents choice.

Observer said,

May 16, 2010 @ 11:18 am

SWD,

SomewhatDisgusted said,
May 14, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

cheers,
/SD

Anyway this whole sacred thing. My point essentially is that it is a subjective matter. You cannot decide what is and is not sacred other than to your own self. Each individual holds thing that are uniquely sacred to them. Therefore as a decent human being I believe you should respect (or at least pretend to respect) what they so dearly value as much as their life.

So no the mother insult was perfectly comparable. Let me elaborate in detail in case you missed the case I made. If my friend’s mother is a promiscuous woman who’s secret that I happen to know and I quite tactlessly happened to alert my friend. And then he quite expectedly lashes out at me and nearly knock me out for the disrespectful words that I uttered, what am I to do? I am the rational person here who bases it on a verifiable fact. He is a believer that refuses to believe his mother could have ever betrayed his father and continues to believe that it is not true. A believer vs. rationalist situation where someone should be more sensitive towards a “sacred” subject which happens to by my friend’s dear mother! Yes!? No!?

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 16, 2010 @ 11:40 am

Dear Burning Issue,

Don’t get too worked up over Mr. Yapa though. “Doubtful” has already written a poem for his continued good health.

I guess the question in most people’s minds is , how many more “characters” like this inhabit our island? Are these the fringe loons or the mainstream? What percentage can we peg this down to? I asked Wijayapala this question, but he didn’t really give me an answer.

My personal opinion is that it’s not as large as one would immediately be alarmed into thinking. But they are vocal, opinionated and brainwashed. Not a good combination. Most of the rest are just apathetic – caught up in their own immediate realities.

These people can’t rule the roost forever though. Sooner or later, education should automatically undermine their chauvinism, although it alarms me how they have survived for so long with such insular thinking.

Dear Mr. Yapa,

Here’s a thought for you. You are a man who talks a lot about modern education right? Frightening stuff like quantum physics which others on this forum cannot grasp using “common knowledge”? So this means you already know that, in the modern world, there is a general consensus that all human beings should be valued, respected and treated fairly?

Of course, you would doubtless point out that the Buddha said this 2500 years ago. So being fair to others was pioneered by Buddhists also no?

So how’s this for a suggestion. You want to protect Buddhism. Fine. Tamils want to protect their language and culture. Fine.

Why don’t we all assimilate into Tamil culture and recruit the Tamils to also help protect Buddhism? Isn’t that a far more fair proposition than asking Tamils to adopt both Sinhala culture and protect Buddhism to boot? We give them something, they give us something. Doesn’t that sound like a fair thing to do? Problem solved instantly? Buddhism transcends culture anyway right? You said it was timeless as I recall?

Instead, it looks to me Mr. Yapa, that you want everything to work your way – Tamils must lose their culture, adopt Sinhalese culture and protect Buddhism, all at the same time. Sounds pretty selfish to me and I’m sure you can’t be a selfish man, since the Buddha said not to be so.

Can you explain using your superior, 4 valued Buddhist logic, how this can work fairly for all concerned?

cheers,
/SD

yapa said,

May 16, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

You say;

["So far, we have been writing about everything else under the sun other than
a. Either write that list – Makes KRN a fact
b. Say that it is not possible to write that list – Makes KRN a faith (a euphemism for akaravathi shradda – or the other way around – so Mr. Yapa does not have a paroxysm"]

Can you please define what you mean by “Fact” in the context of this discussion. You will have to keep in mind that we are talking about includes absolute truths super mundane things in the discussion, which automatically comes forward when talking about Buddhism. Therefore please be kind enough to define and explain the “FACT” you are talking about in the context. I think then we can sort out the matter easily. When the usage of words are vague or unclear, Will never be able to touch the subject matter other than arguing the different connotations of words.We should not play hide and seek behind words. First shall we be clear about what you are demanding? Please communicate very clearly to us what you mean by “FACT” in the context of “THIS” discussion.

Further, under that definition tell us the methodology and guidelines how we should answer you. Please give us some examples of such answers, given in the context.

Then we (myself and hopefully Off the Cuff and Wijayapala) will try our best to answer the long lasting quest.

Thanks!

Thanks!

yapa said,

May 16, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

RE: Your post of May 16, 2010 @ 11:40 am

I know that I am like a prick in your brain muscle. That is why you are intervening to undermine me. But that won;t work, you know “he who protects Dhamma, is protected by dhamma”. So you cannot do any harm to me.

But you cannot avoid karma, it does not work the way you want. it has its own way of operation. “You know “kumbala katu kevwnun duk vindapun balalo”. Kamma follows like the wheel the hoof of the ox.

Want to know more?

1.Mano Pubbangama Dhamma,
Mano Setta Manomaya,
Manasace Passannena,
Bhasativa Karotiva,
Thato nun dukka mun vethi,
Chakkanwa Wahathopedun

Meaning:
All thoughts begins in the mind. Mind is supreme and mind make are things. If one speaks or acts with with impure mind, pain follows him loike the wheel the hoof of the ox.

2. Mano Pubbangama Dhamma,
……………………
…………………….
……………………….
Thatho nun sukhamunvwthi,
Chayawa anapayini

Meaning:

……………..

…. acts with pure mind, happiness follows him like one’s shadow that never leaves.

(Taken from Dhammapada)

If you want to take your prick out of your brain muscle “do wholesome things”, do things with pure mind, give up your wrong views. Then the shadow will follow you.

Theruwan Saranayi!

BalangodaMan said,

May 16, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

Mr Yapa,

Fact = a truth verifiable from experience or observation.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 16, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

Dear Mr. Yapa

All I’ve done is to ask you a simple and direct question.

“Can you explain using your superior, 4 valued Buddhist logic, how this can work fairly for all concerned?”

You have given me an answer which fits into Amaravikkhepavada – although I can’t quite decide whether it’s 1, 2 or 3.

Instead of cutting and pasting irrelevant nonsense (yes, yes, I will go to hell one day, I’m already ok with the fact), can you clearly and directly tell us, what we can do so that it will be a solution fair to all? Would you be happy to implement my own suggestion that we Sinhalese adopt Tamil culture (since your suggestion for doing it vice versa isn’t all that fair) and everyone together protects Buddhism?

You asked: “Can you please define what you mean by “Fact” in the context of this discussion.”

Yes. Of course, I have no doubts we will see yet another awkward but bizarrely captivating dance around this definition soon. (Perhaps even BalangodaMan would develop an appreciation for dance as an art-form after your performance)

Fact – Is a piece of information for which there are enough reasons, that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is true.

Oh but hang on! Why are you worried about the word fact now? Forget that word! It’s irrelevant. All we’ve been asking for, for the entirety of this thread is:

List our 10 convincing reasons (or whatever number you can manage) that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that.

cheers,
/SD

Off the Cuff said,

May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

This is what I have stated

You two have Miserably Failed to prove that Science or what ever method of your choosing is Mature.

So you see SD, I have include EVERY method that Sujewa and BalangodaMan has Chosen to challenge Premeditated Action, Rebirth and Nirvana.

If you chose the TOOL then its Incumbent on you to prove that the TOOL is appropriate. That was my counter challenge.

You and I have both agreed that Science can’t be used because
If Science cannot DISPROVE what it does not know, it cannot PROVE it either. That does not seem to get through to both of your colleagues. They are either too dense or not interest in Logical Analysis.

When Science fails what other method remains to dissect Buddhism?

You see SD, empty heads can create a big noise by asking for cognitive proof (based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge) using such and such methods. But when they are challenged to name and prove that those methods are appropriate they start running around the mulberry bush.

Rebirth – How do you prove it? Can you explain Colour to a person blind from birth? Science and ALL other methods fail here.

Just because there is no known method to explain what colour is to a person blind from birth do you dismiss the existence of Colour? Only the Blind and a fool can. The Blind has to accept what those who see colour says on faith without proof. Fortunately, the physically blind are in a minority, what if the physically blind were an overwhelming majority? For the sake of argument let’s say all but one person in this world are blind. That one person would be describing a world full of colour to a world full of people who do not know what colour is. Even if that world would be ridiculing the only person who can see, the Truth, such ridicule will not alter the truth. Colour will exist despite the ridicule.

You see SD, Cognition depends on the senses. As I showed in the Blind persons case even the loss of ONE of those senses alters Cognition radically.

The current state of Science cannot explain colour to the Blind. But Science will definitely be able to do it one day when it matures to a level where it can interface to the Human brain at the Neurological level.

Now consider why Science or any other method fails to convey to the Blind from Birth, the concept of colour. Is it not because of the absence of the sense of sight that we have but the blind does not?

Do we really have only five senses? Could there not be more than five that are in a nascent undeveloped state?

Buddhism is Mind Centric and places the development of the Mind within the core of the philosophy. It emphasises that the Mind can be progressively developed by Meditation. It describes the process of development and the stages of development that can be achieved. It describes the abilities that become enhanced as the Mind continues to develop. How do you communicate what you “see” with an advanced Mind to someone who does not posses that faculty? The problem is the same as the Blind person’s case.

Looking for proof then lies with each individual.
This is what I said in my very first post in the Akon thread on April 8, 2010 @ 11:10 am

“……. Again it remains a belief until we attain a state of mind that can remember our previous birth (which can be achieved through meditation in this birth). Then it will be known to each person who posses such a state of mind as fact but to others it will still remain just a belief. Probably, as Psychological research extends our knowledge and ability to read the Foetal Mind we may discover it as fact someday in the future”
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/03/27/akon-and-buddhism-in-sri-lanka/#comment-16898
Please read the full post for more information

You would have seen the imbecile statements by Sujewa who was trying to deny that he ever insisted on the use of methods that included Science when I was challenging him to prove the Maturity of Science and then doing a turn around when I referred his comment to B’Man. The Flip Flopping left him looking like the proverbial dog unable to cover his indiscretions. Then we have BM who has a knack of going off at a tangent and also attributing his own thoughts to others. I pointed this out on at least two occasions.

Discuss and criticise Buddhism, the Buddha Himself extended that invitation. When you bring in to the discussion matters that are external to Buddhism and try to discuss it as matters internal to Buddhism you are not doing justice to that discussion as you are then not discussing the Philosophy the Buddha taught.

ordinary lankan said,

May 16, 2010 @ 8:22 pm

BATTLE LINES

The battle lines are drawn
And they are very clear
All you need now
Is a friendly messenger
Who will not be killed by either side
A boundary crosser
With nothing to gain
And nothing to lose
Go look for one
Unless you really want to
Kill each other!
What gives you more satisfaction
Killing the opposing point of view?
Or sympathizing with it?
Deal with this question
And perhaps
You might learn
The first thing about religiousness
It is not enough
To seek the truth with your mind only
You must seek it with your heart too…

yapa said,

May 16, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Please watch these videos too.

http://tv.muxlim.com/video/0Y_x9hfxeeJ/Yogi-who-lives-without-food-water/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDBz-VbMMQY

Thanks!

LuckyGirl said,

May 16, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

Came back to see if anyone had read what i linked and had an opinion on it. Realised that the thread isnt really about karma anymore. Oh well!

Cheers!

LG

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 16, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

Hi Burning Issue,

RE: (part of one of your reply’s to Yapa):

“I for one believe that, the Sinhalese will regain their senses and marginalise people like you and re-establish Sri Lanka as a true plural nation.”

Yes, I agree with this view. Had the Sinhalese of the 40′s & 50′s taken the non-violent protests by the Tamils against their marginalization & for equal rights seriously in a positive sense, the conditions that gave rise to the LTTE & the separatist war starting in the late 70′s & 80′s probably would not have arisen in SL. Now that the war is over, & LTTE is not blowing people up, the majority of the Sinhalese will no doubt come to the conclusion that it is better to come up with a way to live in peace in a united Sri Lanka & improve the country together than follow racial/ethnic/religious supremecist (sp?) views & policies.

Also, I disagree with Yapa on the view that the Tamils need to assimilate into Sinhala culture. Rather, what the Tamils & the Sinhalese (specially) need to do is to create a common Sri Lankan identity, & make it easy for people from all backgrounds to subscribe to that. I believe agnostics & other non-believers on both sides may be of assistance in this endeavor (both in SL & in the diaspora).

Neither an ancient Buddhist kngdom nor an ancient Hindu kigdom type set up, or two such set ups, in Sri Lanka, will make it possible for people in Sri Lanka to compete with & coorporate with the modern world. The best thing to do is to make religions private matters & create a space where all individuals, irrespective of religions or ethnicity/race/whatever other nonsense that people use to separate themselves can go after their positive/constructive goals in Sri Lanka. A few years of that should see a massive improvement in the quality of life in Sri Lanka.

- S

wijayapala said,

May 16, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

Dear LuckyGirl,

I was just about to comment on your link. The author of the article goes off on tangents and I generally had a hard time following his arguments. In short, it is perfect material for the “secular agnostics” here who are eager to suck up anything uttered by westerners like Agatha Christie and John Donne.

You’re correct that the secular agnostics’ arguments here have nothing to do with kamma, which is probably why they did not read your link. At least judging from Sujewa Ekanayake’s rantings, it seems that they have delusions about replacing Buddhism in SL with some half-baked notion of secularism. I have no doubt at all that they will blame their failure to be accepted on the ignorance and intolerance of Buddhists, as the last thing that I’ve seen from them has been introspection of any sort.

So, why are you “LuckyGirl?” Is it because you’ve meet your “LuckyGuy?”

Off the Cuff said,

May 17, 2010 @ 12:53 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted / BalangodaMan,

“BTW, religious indoctrination can be considered a form of child abuse, as BalangodaMan highlighted in his post earlier.”

That’s an interesting position.

How would you teach your child to distinguish right from wrong?

Would you stop telling the child anything which can be interpreted as indoctrination and allow the child the freedom of the Ass?

What would you tell your child about,
Killing?
Lying?
Taking Alcaholic drinks?
Sexual misbehavior?
Dishonesty?
Disrespect for authority?
etc

Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 17, 2010 @ 2:24 am

OTC,

RE:
“What would you tell your child about,
Killing?
Lying?
Taking Alcaholic drinks?
Sexual misbehavior?
Dishonesty?
Disrespect for authority?
etc

Would you avoid the religious view on the above subjects as that may constitute religious indoctrination and hence Child Abuse?”

The reasons for handling the items you mentioned in a certain way can be taught & or explained to a child without using any religions or religious beliefs.

Further, many believers of all the religons have done all of the items listed above, thus, it will be difficult to show that relying on a religious justification of not killing, etc. is effective.

Just in case the above is too abstract & cannot be grasped by a believer, I’ll go point by point & explain how to handle each item when teaching a child:

“What would you tell your child about,
Killing?”

Don’t kill. Humans & animals don’t like being killed, & there will be consequences – legal or other people will act against you if you kill people, most likely. Plus there is the personal guilt & remorse that may arise from killing which could lead to self-destructive behavior/harm to self.

“Lying?”

Generally lying is to be avoided, causes confusion & misunderstandings. Lying should be avoided fully on all large scale/relevant to many people level, such as lying (making up untruths) about an entire group of people, for example.

“Taking Alcaholic drinks?”

When you are old enough, in moderation, it may be acceptable, however, there are serious dangers to health, coming from addiction to the substance, etc. So, probably best to avoid it.

“Sexual misbehavior?”

Not healthy. Best to avoid it (& when the kids are old enough, you can explain in detail your positon – w/ details about unwanted pregnancies, deseases, and emotional trauma that may arise from sexual misconduct).

“Dishonesty?”

(i am not sure how a believer can argue against dishonesty , since religions teach speculative items as real to kids, but anyway…)

Best to avoid it, cause damage to others & self.

“Disrespect for authority?”

Generally, if authority is just (and you can show how just authority can be recognized), it is best to (useful to society & self) to follow/work with sources of authority. However, unjust authority should be challenged & just changes should be sought.

Hope that helps with your religon & children related dilemma.

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 17, 2010 @ 2:54 am

Re: OTC’s clever (or maybe not so clever, but definitely dishonest) attempt to re-define karma as it is taught in Buddhism (OTC started using Premediated Action as a substitue for the term karma in a post above). Here is what a Buddhist monk says about the teaching of karma in Buddhism (from BuddhaNet: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm):

“Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

What is the cause of the inequality that exists among mankind?
Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?
Why should one person be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot?
Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?
Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle?
Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed?|
Why should some be blessed, and others cursed from their births?

Either this inequality of mankind has a cause, or it is purely accidental. No sensible person would think of attributing this unevenness, this inequality, and this diversity to blind chance or pure accident.

In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve. Usually, men of ordinary intellect cannot comprehend the actual reason or reasons. The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth.”

The beliefs outlined above, related to karma, are full of things that cannot be proven as true/real. Such as: “In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve”, & “The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth” – and these are beliefs that have been taught as a part of Buddhism for centuries, & are taught even now. OTC & other SL political Buddhists (people who claim to be Buddhists in order to use Buddhism for Sinhala political projects in SL) may attempt to re-define the word in order to win an argument – as OTC does above – but the Buddhist position on karma are clear – it involves past-lives & future lives.

And here’s one example of OTC’s attempt to re-define karma:

“So you see SD, I have include EVERY method that Sujewa and BalangodaMan has Chosen to challenge Premeditated Action, Rebirth and Nirvana.”

From the comment: May 16, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

And here is my challenge to the believers, quoted from the top of this page:

“prove, using modern science or math or any other verifiable method available, to non-believers, that karma, reincarnation, nirvana, as described in Buddhism, are real aspects/actual things that exist in this world.”

Notice, I use the terms: “karma…as described in Buddhism” and not Premeditated Action, as OTC chooses to re-interpert the term.

And, the Buddhist definition of karma, as stated by a Buddhist monk, was given from the BuddhaNet quote above. Notice how it invloves past lives. And that is a far more fantastic idea than mere premeditated action. OTC is attempting to re-define the Buddhist concept of karma in order to try to win this debate. Thus, actions of a political Buddhist, & not someone who reflects real/actual Buddhist teachings.

The fake Buddhist OTC fails again. I am sure he will nevertheless try again & again to mindlessly assert that K,R,N are something more than symbolic ideas that exist in a speculative/faith based religion.

- S

BalangodaMan said,

May 17, 2010 @ 5:11 am

Hey LuckyGirl, it made me laugh Thanks for sharing.

wijayapala said,

May 17, 2010 @ 6:05 am

Yapa,

I invited Burning_Issue to this discussion because unlike the other “secular agnostics” here, he is able to keep his thoughts focused and doesn’t try to distract the discussion when the arguments stack against him. He also has a lot more substance to contribute to the discussion of Sinhala-Tamil relations than “secags” like Sujewa whose understanding of history is limited to abstract sound-bites lifted from Amnesty International.

Therefore I was rather disappointed to see you refer to him as “ignorant.” I did not find Burning_Issue’s comment as ignorant because there are many Sinhalese- not you or I- who falsely believe that they belong to a separate racial stock than the Tamils. And this is only one drop of foolish thinking in the vast sea of Sinhala ignorance regarding anything non-Sinhala! (interestingly, Sujewa is a prime example of the Cinnamon Gardens pseudo-intellectual variety of this Sinhala ignorance).

I take Burning_Issue very seriously because unlike this handful of half-brained secag peacocks strutting about pretentiously that they are way too sophisticated to be Buddhists, BI’s views and more importantly fears are reflected to a great degree in the wider Tamil population. From his writing he comes across as very humble, truly the antithesis of the self-congratulating loudmouths of the “secular” cause.

BI also has a lot of testicular matter behind his humility. Look at his comments to two fellow Tamils in this thread on May 14, 2010 @ 12:35 am talking about how Tamils must avoid racism when calling for their rights. How often do we come across ANY Sri Lankan who is able to think inwards instead of blaming everything on someone else (the secags are at least as guilty as everyone else, as much as they like to think of themselves as too advanced for chauvinism)?

Therefore I kindly ask that you avoid making negative references to Burning_Issue; we can criticize his ideas if they are misplaced. I think that he is the best thing that happened to this thread; it is unfortunate that he is too busy to share his thoughts.

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 17, 2010 @ 7:46 am

Another article (Rebirth: A Case for Buddhist Agnosticism http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-case-buddhist-agnosticism?page=0,1) on how Buddhist believers & teachers & promoters (monks & others, such as OTC here) re-define aspects of Buddhism (such as rebirth, an item in traditional Buddhist beliefs that is affected by karma) in order to make the religion more appealing to Westerners & others influenced by more modern thinking:

“Many contemporary forms of Buddhism in the West—especially Zen and vipassana—seem to pay little attention to the doctrine of rebirth, emphasizing instead the importance of living more fully and authentically in the present. Teachers in these traditions often use the idea of rebirth metaphorically to describe the moment-to-moment process of “dying” and being “reborn.” However appealing, psychologically astute, and didactically skillful such interpretations may be, they can give rise to the misleading impression that in traditional Zen or Theravadan cultures the doctrine of rebirth is likewise not taken literally. Not only is belief in rebirth firmly adhered to in all Buddhist countries, from Japan to Sri Lanka, but—especially in East Asia—it has become the very basis for the livelihood of the majority of monks and nuns. A typical Zen temple in Korea or Japan spends far more time offering services to assist departed parishioners on their way to a better rebirth than on instructing the living in zazen.

Institutionalized Buddhism throughout Asia not only has a doctrinal commitment to rebirth but also an economic and political one. In contrast to most Tibetan lamas, for whom the belief in the doctrine of rebirth is essential to the continuing authority of their institutions in exile, other Asian Buddhists in the West have felt freer to adapt their teachings to suit the needs of a secular and skeptical audience whose interest in the dharma is as a way of finding meaning here and now rather than after death. One will search in vain for any discussion of rebirth in the numerous writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, for example. Although he comes from a country (Vietnam) in which the belief is deeply rooted, he now seems to be moving toward a view that equates karma with some form of genetic inheritance and transmission.”

More at the article: http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-case-buddhist-agnosticism?page=0,1

- S

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 17, 2010 @ 8:07 am

Dear Mr. Yapa,

Funny you should mention this Indian Yogi who seems to live off sunlight. I stumbled onto a video about him just yesterday, purely by accident. Another spooky coincidence? Anyway, here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u6eJB9GLY

Let’s face it, this man would invalidate all known knowledge of physiology overnight so I’m sure the entire medical community would be happy to test his claims. Plus, a $1 million prize awaits!

Dear OTC,

A light-hearted video by James Randi on why he’s skeptical and why you can’t prove a negative – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

Dear Wijayapala,

James Randi’s out-of-body experience – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwKkbd2e-c

cheers,
/SD

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 17, 2010 @ 8:50 am

Dear LuckyGirl,

I did read the article. Thanks.
Didn’t comment on it because it provides no additional proof of Karma. It just argues a case for why, if one *assumes* karma exists, then karma would be a self-consistent concept. There are many billions of things that can be rationally shown to be self-consistent but have no basis in reality. So the problem remains, how or why do we *assume* karma exists?

cheers,
/SD

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 17, 2010 @ 10:36 am

Dear Mr. Yapa,

You said: “I will come back to the main discussion of super mundane “FACTS”.”

We are not talking about any such topic and I certainly don’t know when it got elevated to being the “main discussion”. You are talking about irrelevant things and diverting attention from the topic as usual. The question, very simply and definitively asked, is the following:

List our 10 convincing reasons (or whatever number you can manage) that would convince any reasonable person, beyond reasonable doubt, that Kamma/Rebirth/Nirvana are real. This is the required proof. Simple as that.

This is a simple question for which you should be able to provide a direct answer, or honestly admit that you can’t. Instead, you keep evading it, reason 1 off the Amaravikkepavada again?

cheers,
/SD

yapa said,

May 17, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted;

RE: your post of May 16, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

Don’t get excited when I ask a question. I am not going to gobble you up. Do not get scared.

I asked this question to start a new page in the unending discussion which has now become dull and useless going round the same circle over and over again. I think our motive of the discussion should be to come to reasonable conclusion(s) and not an endeavour to recap our own opinions. That is why I posed that question.

Now that you have given an answer, I think we can move forward a fresh discussion. However, I am not sure you have provided the very specific answer (definition) as I mentioned in my post. If you gave the definition without much thinking about it, I think you can think over it and give a better definition as per the description given by me, or if you feel you can provide a better one than I expected, that suits the context of the discussion please provide that definition.

Now we will consider the meaning of the word “Supermundane”

1. Being above the world; superior to the world or earthly things.

2. (Sanskrit, lokottara). Term denoting matters relating to the Noble Path (ārya-mārga) and its fruits, and thus connected with, or conducive to, liberation. In other words, any activity or practice not associated with the mundane (laukika) world of unenlightened beings (pṛthagjana).

3.supermundane (Skt., lokottara). Term denoting matters relating to the Noble Path (ārya-mārga) and its fruits, and thus connected with, or conducive to, liberation. In other words, any activity or practice not associated with the mundane (laukika) world of unenlightened beings (pṛthagjana).

Further I found some synonyms for the word, please see.

I think we can get a reasonable idea about the meaning of the word from the above information.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/supermundane

The other key word of ours is reality. We will try to get some idea about this through dictionaries and thesauruses.

1. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. (Wikipedia)

2.
re·al·i·ty
   /riˈælɪti/ Show Spelled[ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties for 3, 5–7.
1.
the state or quality of being real.
2.
resemblance to what is real.
3.
a real thing or fact.
4.
real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5.
Philosophy.
a.
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b.
something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6.
something that is real.
7.
something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.

Next will try to see whether there exist something called “super mundane” and “reality” and try to see the nature of them if they exist..

See you in the next post.

Thanks!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 17, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

Dear Wijayapala,

You said: “From his writing he comes across as very humble, truly the antithesis of the self-congratulating loudmouths of the “secular” cause.”

Looks like Wijayapala now wishes to portray himself as the down-to-earth, authentic Sri Lankan who is utterly disgusted by the pomposity of the neo-colonial, “secag” boors, whose arguments he has contemptuously blown out of the water. As much as we enjoy this “humble” portrayal of earthiness, I distinctly recall you making claims about the superiority of Buddhism to everyone else – the secags merely suggested it ain’t necessarily so.

Amusingly enough, you now wish to put the “secags” in their place, presumably under the mistaken impression that we somehow look down upon you for your unfounded beliefs. Yes. I personally think your belief is mistaken, I’ve not minced my words in that regard, but that doesn’t mean you don’t think the same of mine. So quite frankly, I couldn’t care less how you take it – an argument needs to be taken for its merit – not by the emotional value you’ve attached to it since childhood – clearly a lot. I have no intention of bothering with your personal beliefs – I said so at the outset. My only concern is, what does Buddhism do to Sri Lanka – is it sending us on a positive trajectory, or a negative one? What can be done to correct it?

You know, as well as I do, what the mainstream interpretations of Buddhism are. You know that the main-stream interpretation does exactly what I said it does – keeps dissatisfied people in their place. I don’t need to go far to show this. Just a few posts ago, Sujewa posted a link from BuddhaNet that nicely illustrates the point – here’s that gem of a quote – “In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve”.

The funny thing is, this monk doesn’t quite grasp the fact that, according to the Anatta concept as I recall, what continues to the next life is merely the last thoughts of the individual, not some soul. So how in the world could a completely brand new individual, who has *no connection to the previous individual* other than through this fleeting thought, be deserving of this fate? Would you care to explain?

You protested when I mentioned this. But I made no misinterpretation. This is indeed the popular interpretation. So would you like to clarify to me why this is not a harmful perception?

Since you talk so much about introspection – you should clearly be aware of this. On top of these kinds of perceptions, we actually have a population which is intensely paranoid about preserving Buddhism due to some imminent existential threat to it. When the “secags” pointed out that this was harmful and Buddhism needs to realign itself with its roots, you yourself were arguing that militant Buddhism was a suitable response to “preserve Buddhism”. Very well – what in the “heck” are we preserving? Later you agreed again that while most people would not be able to benefit, some would!

OIC!! I get it now. So much of the population in Sri Lanka are tools! They are tools for preserving Buddhism, so that one or two individuals can ship themselves over to Nibbana eventually (maybe in another 2500 years). The rest are expendable units that can kill, die and generally be kept satisfied with their dire circumstances, as long as these holy truths are preserved.

Thank you for that brilliant bit of logic Wijayapala. No wonder you are pissed off when someone calls you on it.

If mainstream Buddhism does not align itself with ideas and attitudes which are in line with 21st century norms – then what we have is not an asset – it’s a liability.

Secondly, if these delusions of grandeur, which had its uses in the 1800s, persist into the future, we will only see more and more insular thinking which is essentially unsuitable for a highly multi-cultural society. It automatically defeats your own professed allegiance to one, because by self-admission, the Sinhalese are guardians of holy truths and therefore automatically superior to others.

Calling me or the rest of the secags “peacocks” for pointing out this problem will not really *solve the problem* will it?

Therefore, my main argument is this – if we don’t get these paranoid delusions of holy truths under control – we can only have a repeat of the same kind of thinking that has driven us further into this mess over the last 60 years. Using your powers of introspection, why don’t you tell me what’s wrong with that argument? (And no, please don’t come up with the strawman that I only blame the Sinhalese or some such nonsense. Of course not. You have to be dense to not realize that there are many facets to this problem)

cheers,
/SD

yapa said,

May 17, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

Dear wijayapala

RE: Your post of May 17, 2010 @ 6:05 am

Actually the reference in my first post addressed to Burning _Issue was confined to the particular issue raised by him in his post. I have noted him as a reasonably moderate person in his views, except in a few cases. My stance on him is I think clearly mentioned in my second post, and I have no personal issue with anybody, due to his ethnicity. I respect all the ethnicity in this country and appreciate their vivid contribution to make this country a spectrum of colours. He also must accept that I am not a chauvinist as he named me in anger. People call others names in haste, but they are too early to decide so. My calling him as Ignorant may also be so. If so I regret it.

However, I should also note something: the behaviour of SomewhatDisgusted and Sujewa Skanayake wrt to my response. They tried to take the advantage of the opportunity against me interfering and writing essays against my stance, to persuade Burning_Issue to go against me. they tried to catch fish in muddy waters. This is another example that ethnicity is not the sole or the most significant decisive factor that marks the border lines of the divisions within us.

I have no issue. Burning_Issue is warmly welcome.

Thanks!

Off the Cuff said,

May 17, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

Addressing me you state
“You said through meditation one can see the truth of past lives …

Yes, provided you reach the level of mental acuity that allows you to do so.

“Meditation is self-hypnosis. I can tell that ‘cos I am avid fan and practitioner of the process. It is very powerful so it must be used carefully. Under hypnosis the subject (you) is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion – indeed that is the very purpose of it. Hypnotising yourself is the same – you direct yourself. In the transcendental state you reach you can get your mind go anywhere you like, and totally believe where you go. So if you go to ‘a past live’ it seems very real. In the process your subconscious mind becomes ‘programmed’ with it. So your belief in whatever suggestion (whether you give yourself or a practitioner induces it) becomes internalised. eg. you can achieve unshakable confidence (for example by internalising the suggestion that you are a totally confident person) or if you programme yourself to think you are a bird you could fly off a tall building and (of course) die – because you are not a bird actually!

Strange that you have escaped being self hypnotized.
Are you sure that you are not in a self induced Hypnotic trance?

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 17, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

Here’s Wijayapala’s Guide to Logic & Argument:

1 – state something that was never discussed prior in the thread & then accuse the other side of not knowing anything about it (such as JVP attempts to overthrow gov, etc. – as he did a few posts above).
– also, had this been an issue of discussion, I would have pointed out that I myself directly saw violence aganst Tamils commited by the Sinhalese in 1983 in the South, also, prior, in the ’71 JVP rebellion – a family member was on the JVP side & I have heard direct ibservations re: what happened, also, re: the ’89 JVP rebellion – I saw with my own eyes how the gov’t death squads got the situation “uncer control” by leaving dead bodies (in some cases of people who had nothing to do with the JVP) around Kagella & elsewhere. Plus then there are the family members who have servd in the SL military, another source of direct knowledge re: the violence soaked way of life in SL. Of course none of these are convienient or comfortable possibilities for Wijayapala to entertain (as in, his Buddhist brainwashed mentality makes him think that any discussion about any aspect of Sri Lanka is automatically a conspiracy to undermine the Sinhalese & Sri Lanka, even though the questions are being asked by a member of the tribe), thus he has to paint the opposition in this argument as being ignorant & directly unconnected to matters in SL. Good tactic to divert attention from the topic at hand when Wijayapala’s side is losing – as in they still cannot show that Buddhism is anything more than a faith based religion. And, a failed one at that in Sri Lanka – 2000+ years of it on the island have turned the Sinhalese into poor & violent people who (in the case of Wijayapala at least) cannot entertain critical inquiries.

2 – When the other side does reveal that they do in fact know a lot about the so called unknown item (such as pre-Sinhala sources of influence in Sri Lanka), ignore it, don’t mention it again.

Will get back to the crooked ways of Wijayapala later, now I’ve got to go to work.

Keep up the good work agnostics.

- S

ordinary lankan said,

May 17, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

please see below some info on the precepts of engaged buddhism – this is a side of modern buddhism – deep, compassionate and grounded in suffering that is often overlooked

it does not make sense to assert that ‘my religion is best’ nor does it do any good for secularists to think they have the perfect answer – the truth may be in the middle – the latter may need to find some sources for secularism from within – like emperor asoka – his model of religious tolearnce will be stronger and will not sound or look alien –

THE FOURTEEN PRECEPTS

OF ENGAGED BUDDHISM

By Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh (From the book Interbeing)

SEVEN PRECEPTS FOR THE MIND

1. The Lion’s Roar
Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2. Truth is found in Life
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

3. Freedom of Thought
Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

4. Awareness of Suffering
Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.

5. Living Simply
Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.

6. Compassion is Understanding
Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.

7. Mindful and Joyful Living
Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.

TWO PRECEPTS FOR SPEECH

8. Harmony in the Community
Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

9. Mindful Speech
Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.

FIVE PRECEPTS FOR THE BODY
10. Standing up to Injustice
Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.

11. Right Livelihood
Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.

12. Protecting Life
Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.

13. Social Justice
Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

14. Three Sources of Energy
Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns:) Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.

From the book ‘Interbeing’: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism, revised edition: Oct. l993 by Thich Nhat Hanh, published by Parallax Press, Berkeley, California
Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh is a Buddhist monk, poet, peace activist, and the author of Being Peace, The Miracle of Mindfulness, and many other books. He lives in a monastic community in south-western France called Plum Village, where he teaches, writes, gardens, and works to help refugees world-wide. He conducts retreats throughout the world on the art of mindful living, and has conducted special retreats for American Vietnam War veterans, psychotherapists, artists, environmental activists and children.

Off the Cuff said,

May 17, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

Dear BalangodaMan / Sujewa

Everything that you have written about teaching a child to distinguish right from wrong contains religious ideas of right and wrong. Using different terminology does not change the ideas.

You have been unable to EXCLUDE religious ideas of Right and Wrong in your replies to the questions I posed in my post of May 17, 2010 @ 12:53 am to SomewhatDisgusted / BalangodaMan.

You claimed that teaching children about religion is a form of Child Abuse. Judging by your replies referred to below you are using the self same religious ideas on your own children wrapped in a different wrapping. By your own definition are you not ABUSING your own children?

What ever the wrapping you use, show us how you exclude religious ideas of Right and Wrong and yet teach children to distinguish between them

Sujewa Ekanayake May 17, 2010 @ 2:24 am
BalangodaMan said, May 17, 2010 @ 5:09 am

Off the Cuff said,

May 17, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

Dear Sujewa,

What is Karma?
The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase “thought, word and deed”. Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent.

The Buddha says:
“I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought.” (Anguttara Nikaya)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

the Buddha interprets kamma as volitional activities. That means, whatever good and bad deeds we commit ourselves without any purposeful intention, are not strong enough to be carried forward to our next life. However, ignorance of the nature of the good and bad effect of the kamma is not an excuse to justify or avoid the karmic results if they were committed intentionally. A small child or an ignorant man may commit many evil deeds. Since they commit such deeds with intention to harm or injure, it is difficult to say that they are free from the karmic results.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/87.htm

the essence of kamma, as is given in the Buddha’s words, Cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami: Monks! Intention, I say, is kamma. Having willed, we create kamma, through body, speech and mind
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm

I hope you understand what volitional means

All three extracts are from buddhanet.
The first extract is from the very same web page Sujewa linked to.

An imbecile thinks that he can understand Buddhism by taking a superficial glance at a web site on Buddhism. At least I have instigated him to read about Buddhism. All this while Sujewa you were PONTIFICATING without even knowing what Kamma is. However you BRAG about belonging to a Highly Pious Buddhist family. Apparently you have not learnt ANYTHING about Buddhism from them.

Please note
Kamma is a Pali word.
Kamma in Pali = Action in English
Kamma in Buddhism = Action + Volition (both elements are required)

Volition
1 : an act of making a choice or decision;
2 : the power of choosing or determining

Note that the thought precedes the action. This is premeditation.

In other words the Buddhist meaning of Karma is Premeditated Action.
I used it to prevent you and others like you from corrupting the Real Meaning.

Sujewa, why do you insist on acting like the Dog that has defecated on a Stone and is struggling to cover it up? The Dog succeeded in only getting covered with the stuff. That’s exactly what you have done too. Very clever indeed!!!

(Re your post of May 17, 2010 @ 2:54 am)

Heshan said,

May 17, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Dear OTC/Yapa and other believers:

To touch upon a rather new point. What is the direction of rebirth, in the context of time? If we assume that rebirth is possible, then what is the justification for forwards rebirth only? Why is it that someone cannot be reborn into a past life and experience again what was experienced in that past life ? Or are you assuming that every event which takes place in a person’s life occurs exactly once and/or is subject to a finite number of repetitions?

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 18, 2010 @ 12:01 am

Here’s OTC’s brand of Buddhism on display:

FROM:
May 17, 2010 @ 10:34 pm:

“An imbecile thinks that he can understand Buddhism by taking a superficial glance at a web site on Buddhism.”

So I guess it takes a person of massive intelligence to argue for a month & a half against the fact that Buddhism is a religion right? Good job OTC

& RE:
“why do you insist on acting like the Dog that has defecated on a Stone and is struggling to cover it up?”

Likening those who do not agree with him to imbeciles & dogs – excellent way to go OTC, I am sure you are gaing much merit through your actions & thoughts.

And keep trying to re-define karma from the way it was defined & used by Buddhism for hundreds of years – with one example given in the BuddhaNet article that I linked to.

And then there is some stuff about belonging to a highly pious family??? Do feel free to point out when I said that. I do however belong to a large SL Buddhist family – fortunately they are not fundie nutjobs like OTC, thus, I am able to think & speak freely.

Keep living in your escapist religious fantasy land. And let us know when you have something relevant to the topic being addressed by the article.

Also, haven’t you already said that K,R,N cannot be proven by science, etc. So why are you still hanging around at this article? Don’t you have some rituals to perform or something, to smooth your way to nirvana?

OTC appears to be a hate & ignorance filled political Buddhist (someone who uses Buddhism for political gains, but is not an actual practitioner).

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 18, 2010 @ 12:26 am

Ordinary Lankan,

RE:
“there is a lot more to Buddhism than what you see in Sri Lanka – I will demonstrate that shortly….” post & the related one that followed;

Good posts. Though somewhat off topic (a common practice here so no big deal really , the posts do highlight some of the positive & practical uses that can be interperted/developed from Buddhist teachings & are relevant to the modern world. As the agnostics have always said during these discussions, there are positive items w/ in Buddhism, not just the speculative items re: nature of death, afterlife, etc. The political Buddhists that we are arguing with are afraid to acknowledge these facts since they fear that any kind of a close look at Buddhism by non-believers will weaken Sinhala-Buddhist power in SL.

But anyway, good posts. I was just reading a book by Hahn (name sp?) this morning before heading out to work.

- S

Burning_Issue said,

May 18, 2010 @ 1:45 am

Dear Wijayapala,

I thank you for your comments. I totally agree with you that, we need to comment on peoples’ ideas and not on personalities. I do not expect people to agree with my point of views; we can share ideas, bridge gaps, and work towards regaining Sri Lanka for all citizens.

RR said,

May 18, 2010 @ 5:55 am

Before commencing his ministry, the Buddha thought to himself that
the ‘dhamma goes against the stream.’ One implication of that is that by normal thinking, one couldn’t “get” it, because it doesn’t conform to normal thinking.

It is true that the Buddha invited his hearers to “come and see”, meaning that they should verify what he taught rather than taking anything blindly. But to verify what he taught doesn’t mean simply to deduce everything rationally, according to one’s normal thinking, because that thinking is deluded, precisely.

There is that element of Buddhism that may not conform to normal, rational thinking. The Buddha discovered his state of peace (santi), which he calls blowing-out (nibbana), not by a priori deduction, but by a posteriori discovery, and after he taught it, it falls on us to verify it, by following what he taught, but not everything he taught needs to conform to our rational expectations.

He perforce used language and thought to teach what he taught, but what he taught refers beyond language and thought, to a state that he defined as the calming of all compositions (the fourth aggregate). What he taught from within language and thought is founded beyond language and thought, on the state of the quiescence of all compositions, and language and thought belong to the compositions (the fourth aggregate). That’s why he said that after what he taught — the Law — has been verified, it should be abandoned, and it should be abandoned when one reaches its end, otherwise it couldn’t be reached.

There is then a discontinuity between what he taught, which was taught from within language and thought, on one side and what it points at, on the other. The latter is to be experienced, not deduced, not rationalised.

Let us review his struggle. He spent quite a few years in a period of Jaina self-starvation and self-mortification, which is revolt in pure form. He attempted to beat down his nature — what he was — by denying it whatever gratification we humans give ourselves in our daily life and on the contrary piling pain upon pain on himself, physical and mental. He imposed himself on his nature, beat it down, sought to vanish it by sheer will.

Then he realised that it had all been a massive error. It was his first awakening –to stop inflicting suffering on himself, and in his case, it had been for nought(this awakening corresponds to the Third Noble Truth, the realisation of the cessationof suffering). He relented, ate again, regained strength, entered meditation, quiesced the compositions (the fourth aggregate), and awoke a second time, this time to the quiet and quiescent mind which does not attempt to impose itself at all on whatever it receives.

Ironically, it is in this state of the calming of all mental functions except pure consciousness of raw, uninterpreted sensation that the fullness of life blooms forth unimpeded.

His first awakening is pretty understandable, from within language and thought, it makes sense to us, but his second awakening may offend our sensibilities, because all our lives we think, never stop thinking, and so a state where thinking stops (whilst one is fully aware of oneself and the world) may violate our expectations. But that is where he invited us to “come and see”, for it is not easily intelligible to us a priori. It has to be experienced a posteriori.

That is where our rational expectations may fail us. If we follow our normal thinking, we may reject it even before giving it any chance. Remember, the Law goes against the stream.

yapa said,

May 18, 2010 @ 6:30 am

Dear Heshan;

RE: Your post of May 17, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Your participation in the discussion is warmly welcome. I think it will help to break this monotony.

I will give my opinion soon, on the new idea you raised in the post.

Thanks

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 18, 2010 @ 10:50 am

Dear Mr. Yapa,

Thank you for the pointed answers.
Hoping for some further clarification.

1. Since you said – “not always”, on what occasions do Sri Lankan citizens not have equal claim to this island?
2. Again – please clarify. Also, how or why does one’s ethnicity change this?
3. I see. So you do not consider it a majoritarian policy? Also, do you disagree the Tamils were unfairly affected?
4. I meant that Tamils are not satisfied with how their language is being treated at a national level. It’s there in the constitution yes, but it is not being implemented up to required expectations. Yes, there may be extenuating circumstances. But as an overall policy, are we doing enough?
5. I agree that the terrorist movement was way overboard. Someone else might counter-argue that it would not have gone overboard if not for atrocities against innocent Tamils. Still, I quite agree that it had to be stopped. Unreservedly glad about the LTTE’s demise personally. However, now it’s time for all parties to correct any mistakes of the past yes?
6. Quite agree. Undoubtedly.
7. I won’t bash it unless it’s silly.

Hoping for more precise answers like the above.

cheers,
/SD

BalangodaMan said,

May 18, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

Mr Yapa should read this. I think it is a good basis for a Buddhist Reformation.

ordinary lankan said, May 17, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

yapa said,

May 18, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

Dear RR;

Thanks for your incisive essays. We were not able say what we wanted ,properly. I think you are doing it in a magnificent way.

Thanks again!

Sur said,

May 18, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

“What, in Buddhism, is the connection between the doer that lived in the past with the sufferer who is living now?”

=======================================

Three positions of human destiny after death:

There are three possible positions that can be taken on human destiny after death. One position, the outlook of materialism. It simply denies that there is an afterlife. It holds that the human being consists of organic matter. It regards mind as a byproduct of organic matter, and after death, with the break up of the physical body, all consciousness comes to an end and the life process is completely extinguished.

The second alternative is the view held in Western theistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their orthodox forms. They believe in an eternal afterlife. According to these religions, we live a single life on earth and after death we live eternally in some state of existence determined by our present beliefs and conduct.

Then there is a third view, a view which prevails in the religions of the East, Hinduism and Buddhism. This is the idea of rebirth. According to this, the present life is only a simple link in a chain of lives that extends back into the past and forward into the future. This chain of lives is called samsara.

BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM COMPARED

The word “Samsara” means literally “continuing on”, “wandering on”. It signifies the repetitive cycle of birth, ageing, death and rebirth.

Now though Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of rebirth, the Buddhist concept differs in details from the Hindu doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth as understood in Hinduism involves a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another. The soul inhabits a given body and at death, the soul casts that body off and goes on to assume another body. The famous Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gita, compares this to a man who might take off one suit of clothing and put on another. The man remains the same but the suits of clothing are different. In the same way the soul remains the same but the psycho-physical organism it takes up differs from life to life.

The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is “punabbhava” which means “again existence”. Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.

REBIRTH WITHOUT A TRANSMIGRATING SOUL

The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime.

The Buddha explains that what we really are is a functionally unified combination of five aggregates. The five aggregates fall into two groups. First there is a material process, which is a current of material energy. Then there is a mental process, a current of mental happenings. Both these currents consist of factors that are subject to momentary arising and passing away. The mind is a series of mental acts made up of feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnes. These mental acts are called in Pali “cittas”. Each citta arises, breaks up and passes away. When it breaks up it does not leave any traces behind. It does not have any core or inner essence that remains. But as soon as the citta breaks up, immediately afterwards there arises another citta. Thus we find the mind as a succession of cittas, or series of momentary acts of consciousness.

Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the “cittasantana”, the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity.

WHAT CONTINUES FROM ONE LIFE TO ANOTHER

The physical organism – the body – and the mental process – the stream of cittas – occur in close interconnection. The body provides the physical basis for the stream of cittas and the mental process rests upon the body as its instrument or basis. When death comes, the body can no longer function as the physical support for consciousness. However, when the body breaks up at death, the succession of cittas does not draw to an end. In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought – moment called the “death consciousness”, which signals the complete end of the life. Then, following the death consciousness, there arises the first citta of the next life which springs up with the newly formed physical organism as its basis. The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body. The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it.

PRESERVATION OF IDENTITY ILLUSTRATED

An illustration may help us understand how this preservation of, identity can take place without the transmigration of any “self-identifiable” entity.

Suppose we have a candle burning at 8 o’clock. If we come back in an hour, at 9 o’clock, we see that the candle is still burning, and we say that it is the same candle. This statement is completely valid from the standpoint of conventional linguistic usage. But if we examine this matter close-up we’ll see that at every moment the candle is burning different particles of wax, every moment it is burning a different section of wick, different molecules of oxygen. Thus the wax, wick and the oxygen being burnt are always different from moment to moment, and yet because the moments of flame link together in a continuum, one moment of flame giving rise to the next, we still say it is the same flame. But actually the flame is different from moment to moment. The flame itself is an entirely different phenomenon. It is conditioned by wax, the wick and air, and apart from them there is nothing.

SIMILE OF THE CANDLE

We can apply this simile to the case of rebirth. The body of the candle is like the physical body of the person. The wick might be compared to the sense faculties that function as the support for the process of consciousness. The particles of oxygen are like the sense objects and the flame is like consciousness.

Consciousness always arises with the physical body as its support. It always arises through a particular sense faculty, eg. eye, ear, nose, etc. It always has an object, e.g. sight, sound, etc. The body, sense faculty and the object keep constantly changing and therefore consciousness and the mental factors are constantly changing. But because each act of mind follows in sequence and passes on the contents to the following, we speak of the body and mind compound as being the same person. When the body loses its vitality and death takes place, that is like the first candle coming to an end.

The transmission of the flame to the next candle, that is like the passing on of the current of consciousness to the next life. When the mental continuum takes up the new body, that is like the flame of the old candle passing on to the new candle.

CONCEPTION

The Buddha says there are three necessary conditions for conception. There has to be a union of the father and mother, the father to provide the sperm, the mother to provide the egg. Second, it must be the mother’s proper season. If the mother isn’t fertile, conception won’t take place. Third, there must be a stream of consciousness of the deceased person, the flow of mind that is ready and prepared to take rebirth. This third factor he calls the “gandhabba”. Unless all these conditions are met conception does not take place.

Does rebirth go on automatically and inevitably?

Is there any causal structure behind this process of rebirth? Does it go on automatically and inevitably? Or is there a set of causes that sustains it and keeps it rolling?

The Buddha explains that there is a distinct set of causes underlying the rebirth process. It has a causal structure and this structure is set out in the teaching of Dependent Arising, “paticcasamupada”.

TEACHING OF DEPENDENT ARISING WITH REFERENCE TO REBIRTH

Now we will explain the teaching of Dependent Arising with specific reference to the rebirth process.

First, in this life there is present in us the most basic root of all becoming, namely ignorance. Due to ignorance we perceive things in a distorted way. Due to these distortions or perversions things appear to us to be permanent, pleasurable, attractive and as our self. Due to these distortions there arises in us craving, craving for sense pleasures, for existence, for sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch sensations and ideas. Basically there is craving for pleasant feeling. In order to experience pleasant feeling we require agreeable objects such as agreeable sights, smells etc. In order to obtain the pleasure these objects can give, we have to make contact with these objects. To contact these objects we need sense faculties that can receive the sense objects. In other words, we need the six sense faculties, eg. the eye to receive sight, the ear to receive sound, etc. In order for the sense faculties to function we need the entire psycho-physical organism, the mind-body complex.

Thus on account of craving the mind holds on to this presently existing organism so long as it lives. But when death occurs the present organism can no longer provide the basis for obtaining pleasure through the sense faculties. However, there is still the craving for the world of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas. So due to this craving for existence, consciousness lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg. It lodges itself in that fertilized egg, bringing a whole storage of accumulated impressions over with it into the new psycho-physical organism. Thus we say the new being is conceived.

CRAVING THE SEAMSTRESS

Hence the Buddha calls craving the “seamstress”. Just as a seamstress sews together different pieces of cloth, so does craving sew together one life to another. It ties together the succession of lives. Craving is so powerful that it can bridge the gap created by death and rebuild the whole house of sentient existence again and again.

Thro’ many a birth in Sansara wandered I,
Seeking but not finding, the builder of this house. Sorrowful is repeated birth.
O House-builder! you are seen. You shall build no house again.
All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole is shattered.
To dissolution goes my mind.
The End of Craving have I attained.
Dhammapada (154)

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha058.htm

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 18, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

Sur,

RE:

“So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences?”

If you murdered someone yesterday then others may be able to point this fact out using evidence (someone saw it perhaps, blood stains on your cloths, you were in the neighborhood of the murder, your DNA material found at the dead body, etc.), whether you yourself remember it or not or whether your yourself admit to doing it is not a major obstacle in convicting someone of murder in many cases. However, the existence of past lives is not observable, and, individuals are not, & cannot, be held responsible for something that they themselves did not do (like an action commited in a past life, which – past lives – probably do not exist). The reincarnation theory used in Hinduism, which was refined/altered for Buddhism, probably comes out of the need in ancient Hindu society to justify the caste system, or why social mobility was absent in their society. It is a theory used for social control, as much of ancient religions were.

RE:
“Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?”

If you stole from people then 1) there would be people with some of their things missing, & 2) you may have some of the missing things in your possession. If you had a car accident there would be evidence of it in the real world. So, whether you remember doing thoses things or those things happening or not would not absolve you of your responsibility for those events. There are no actual things (missing items that are in your possession, damage from a car accident) that we can point to & then pin the responsibility for those items on a newborn child or a young person or someone who is hundreds of years removed from a historical event.

Reincarnation/Rebirth are speculative items used by priests/monks to scare & control people. They may work on the ignorant, but will not on people who have developed healthy rational minds.

- S

BalangodaMan said,

May 18, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

Sur,

REBIRTH vs REINCARNATION and practical difficulties
————————————————–

“So if you murdered someone yesterday, bumped your head and forgot about it today…that absolves you of all consequences? Of you stole from people, broke into their homes but then had a car accident and developed amnesia… that absolves you of all the consequences? You shouldn’t be held accountable for your past deeds?”

Sur, you misunderstand my question. You make it sound like all beings are convicted amnesiacs who cannot remember what crime they have been convicted of, and we are expected to believe something NO ONE can remember!

My point, however, is much more basic.

In the case of reincarnation I can understand (even though I am not convinced) that the doer and the sufferer are connected, they are the ‘same person with same cosmic ID’. Therefore I can see the ‘sell-ability’ of such a theory. If the Buddha, in his teachings, made a fundamental distinction between ‘rebirth’ (what he claims to be the truth) and ‘reincarnation’ (untruth) then he must have explained how the cause and effect works where ‘no person exists’.

It’s like saying (and you will love this, Mr Yapa) … your car has a flat tyre. so you will scrap it and a new tyre goes on someone else’s new car in some other part of town which has the same damage of your old tyre which you have scrapped. My question is, what is the point in this if you and the someone else have nothing to do with each other? This other guy will be pretty pissed off to find that his new tyre has the same damage as your old broken tyre. AND (and drumroll …….) what motivation/responsibility do YOU have to ensure that you look after YOUR TYRES so that the other guy does not have to suffer from YOU not having looked after YOUR TYRES ??????????????????

Simple question, innit?

I just want someone who is conversant with this stuff to explain it to me.

(No, not an explanation like ‘The Buddha was enlightened and he knew and he told us’ we hear so much of)

Take a similar crime and punishment belief – among some of the Native American Indians. They believe in the continuance of responsibility (much like in the doctrine of karma) but down generations … where they hold people responsible for the crimes of their fathers, grandfathers, ancestors. In this case, the idea is similar, however there is a directly identifiable link between the perpetrator and the punished (though we will surely question the fairness of it). In Hindu-style reincarnation there is a transmigration, we are told. In Buddhism there is nothing. I just don’t see the logic in the proposition – it cannot work as a serious proposition.

Pondering over that, why would the Buddha make it a point to differentiate ‘rebirth’ from the doctrine of ‘reincarnation’ that was already a basic part of existing Hindu thinking? What is the effect of that differentiation? What behaviour is it there to change? (or it is ‘I know this because it is true, and I am enlightened so I know these things, but it won’t make a jot of difference to you chaps and who cares a toss if it will surely confuse everybody – I know it will confuse everyone because I am enlightened’)

Or have we completely misunderstood what he was saying?

ordinary lankan said,

May 18, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

Empathy is essential for right understanding – the Buddha said this in the Kalama Sutta. but this is not widely known nor practiced – not even in religious discussions

So what do you FEEL when you see an opposing argument that is expressed in less than gentlemanly terms – what does your religion or secularism tell you about such situations and how you should deal with such people?

I would really like to know this …

The Zen Master Suzuki said something v important -

USUALLY WHEN SOMEONE BELIEVES IN A PARTICULAR RELIGION HIS ATTITUDE BECOMES MORE AND MORE A SHARP ANGLE POINTING AWAY FROM HIMSELF. IN OUR WAY THE POINT OF THE ANGLE IS TOWARDS OURSELVES

So in trying to answer these clever questions – and they are clever – we need to appreciate the whole point of the Buddha’s endeavour. He was always trying to get people to look inwards – speculation that did not help to get rid of suffering was really not part of the discipline he taught.

and beyond the self lies SILENCE and that is where the truth is realized – Although thdhe Buddha answered many questions – in a sense he did not answer a single one –

what he did was to get his disciples to silence the questioning mind – and experience and overcome the anxiety and restlessness that lay behind these 1001 questions –

The Buddha teaches more with his silence than with his words – look at any good Buddha statue –

so this is the direction that my specific responses below will take you – it may not be a direction you wish to take – but in the true spirit of secularism and also buddhism I invite you to tolerate this —- STAY ENGAGED – AND STAY FRIENDLY

KARMA

Every thought, word and deed
Has its own sphere of influence
Like every drop of rain
Makes its own circle
Little drops make little circles
Big drops make big circles
We are our thoughts, words and deeds
Is there anything more?
Oh yes there is this imagined self
Who seeks to possess
These thoughts, words and deeds
With this act of possession
We perpetuate the self
This supposed owner
Of good and bad
Until you go beyond good and bad
Until you drop this self
You hang on to this idea
And the self goes on
Like an onion
That goes on and on
With an ‘I’ in between
Very difficult
Not to take sides
Very difficult
To avoid suffering
Your karma is synonymous
With your Self
Don’t separate the two
Don’t think you are some abstract self
Discussing abstract karma
You are discussing your own self
To study Buddhism
Is to study the self
Don’t study dead letters
Study yourself

Good karma is the recurrence
Of positive thoughts
In your own head
Bad karma works the same way
There is no next life
It’s always today – and now
Learn about the present
By being present
Don’t wax eloquent
About ‘meditation’

REINCARNATION

This is easy
You sleep and wake, don’t you?
To sleep
You must die to the day
And to wake you must
Die to the night
Think of life and death
Like day and night
You’ve got it made
If you don’t let go
You have disturbed sleep
And if you don’t shake off your sleep
You are half awake
And have a bad day
This is cause and effect
It’s a complicated affair
Just know
That you don’t know
Be free and open to life
Buddha died long ago
YOU are Buddha now
Just wake up
In this present moment
Be still and relax

NIRVANA

Extinction without a remainder
Like letting go
Like falling asleep
You don’t talk about it
You just do it
A good fire
That leaves nothing
Where does the fire go?
Don’t ask me
Do one thing at a time
And be content
Nirvana is here and now
Not miles away
Have a good laugh
And end this perfect nonsense
We are all losers till we
Give up winning

ordinary lankan said,

May 18, 2010 @ 9:50 pm

Dear SD
Recommended reading below on karma – as for organized religion- is it not amazing how every organized religion – not just buddhism becomes a preserve for social control – greed – hatred and delusion – welcome to this world …

AN EXPOSITION OF KARMA BY SHARON SALZBERG

The Buddha himself was asked why people experience such diverse conditions in this world. He replied that we are all the owners of our differing karma and its fruits. Even after death, our only true property is this force of our intentions and their results.

The Buddha said that people who take the lives of others tend to live a short time, and those who refrain from killing tend to live long. People who cause pain to others tend to experience pain, disease, and weakness, those who practice nonviolence tend to experience good health and strength. Those who are greedy and do not give much tend to experience poverty, while those who are generous have abundance. People who are interested and investigate the truth tend to be intelligent; people who do not care about looking more deeply and seeing more clearly tend to be stupid. Those who practice stealing or adultery do not have many good friends, people who are careful and virtuous in their actions are respected and loved and they have many friends.

Again, these are not rigid absolutes. They are just tendencies. And there is no judgement in any of it. In the incredible vastness of the vision of Buddha-mind, this world of birth, death, and change we call samsara had no beginning. In this inconceivably immense vision of reality, we have all wandered forever, and so we all train an endless, infinite amount of past karma. Through this timelessness we have all done everything, every one of us: we have loved, hated, feared, killed, raped, stolen, given, served, loved. We have done it all. Through beginningless and ongoing rounds of rebirth, we are all one another’s parents, children, friends, lovers, and enemies, over and over again.

There is no reason for a feeling of separation from anything or anyone, because we have been it all and done it all. How then can we feel self-righteous or removed from anyone or any action? There is no spot on this earth where we have not laughed, cried, been born, and died. So in some sense, every single place we go is home, Everyone we meet we know. Everything that is done we are capable of.

That is why we do not hold an understanding of karma in a narrow way. It is an extremely vast vision of life. If at a given moment we experience the fruits of a past action, whether wholesome, or experience happening outside ourselves, we understand that this also is our experience, as in a dream when every character is some reflection of our own mind.

If you do not feel any resonance with this teaching about many lifetimes, you can still understand this radical non-separation from all who are and all that happens by looking within. Whether or not you believe in rebirth, you can see that all states exist within you. You do not need to feel separate when they arise within you; you do not need to be afraid. And you do not need to feel separate when you see them outside of yourself, either, all of it is just reflecting the mind with all of its possibilities. No matter what happens, inside or outside, no matter whom you meet, all of it is just another way of seeing yourself.

Many years ago I was a nursing student, and in one of the hospital training periods an abused child was brought in, with her abusive mother. There were about thirty nursing students present, plus hospital staff. The students and staff predominantly related to the mother with coldness and aloofness, as though to say “Oh you beast way, way over there in the distance, how could you have done a thing like that? Later that day, as the nursing students were gathered, someone made a comment to that effect. I responded by saying, “Well, I could understand doing something like that. I’ve seen impulses of rage and fear and frustration arise in my mind that could motivate such an awful act. I’m confident I would not do it, because of gifts, such as awareness, that I can bring to bear on that moment, but I don’t feel so absolutely, unutterably separate from that mother.” Once I had said that, thirty pairs of eyes turned to me and there was complete silence. I sat there wondering. “Did I just say the wrong thing?” But it was clear that although it may have upset the group, it was nonetheless the truth.

Burning_Issue said,

May 18, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

Dear Yapa,

Thanks for your post. First of all, I do not want to interfere with SomewhatDisgusted’s questions; however, I will eagerly follow the progress of this! This means that, I will delay my responses to some of your comments to me as they are directly connected to those 7 questions.

If I had given you an impression that I am bias in criticisms, that is incorrect. I am as much critical about Tamil nationalism as about the Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. I tell you this; the Tamils will have to live with the brutal realities of Suicide bombings; the Muslims will be a constant reminder to Tamils of their barbaric removal from the North. Moreover, the Tamils in the North in particular have lost their sense of community and general order; this will take years to regain.

You said:
“ No, I haven’t said so not meant so. What I say are not for interpretation. I have several times said if I say “cat” it is only “cat” and nothing else. You cannot interpret what I say the way you want and analyze/ criticize to find wrongs in me. I am not belong to that category.”

If I have interpreted you wrongly, I will be in a haste to admit that; please give me some time on this.

I said:
I also think that, you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka; your notion that if the Tamils had had assimilated into the Sinhala way, everything would have been fine;

You said:
“ Don’t arbitrarily think so. It is incorrect. Please read my original writing again.”

Which point is incorrect; is it the Tamil assimilated into the Sinhala way or you do not recognise the Tamil history in Sri Lanka? The Assimilation point is clear; you clearly said that in one of your earlier posts; so, it’s about Tamil history, right? Again, I will wait until further development on those 7 questions.

I said:
but you fail to see from Tamil perspective. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that in inherently Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions;

You said:
“ I never failed to see from the Tamil perspective. Most of the others are only partially true. I do not agree with your last opinion. Almost all the battles contained “the element” of ethnicity.”
Which of the following are true, partially true, and not true:

1. The Sri Lankan Tamils constitute a community that is inherently Sri Lankan
2. Sri Lanka has always had cultural, religious, and language diversity; harmony existed throughout its history.
3. Of course there were many battles; none were on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of territorial aggressions

On the third point, I disagree with you; please show with evidence that, there were ethnic elements in battles.

I said:
There is no doubt that since the independence, the Sri Lankan polity has been fully influenced by Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism. One can understand that the majority community wanted grater share of the nation.

You said:
“ This is very bias notion. During the British colonial period, the rights of the Sinhala Buddhist were subjugated and the Tamils were given special privileges. What happened after the independence was Sinhala Buddhist awakening to gain their due and fair share of rights. This is evident from the number of Sinhala Buddhist schools available in the latter part of the 19th century. Out of 1000+ government schools there were only 3 Sinhala Buddhist schools.”

The fact was that there were elite communities in both communities and they did very well under the colonial periods. However, the fundamental deference between the Sinhala and Tamil communities was that, the Tamils took advantage of the Christian schools and put a lot of emphasis on education. This is not to say that there weren’t any objections to Christian dominance in terms of schools. The Hindu organisations countered this with establishment of Hindu school; e.g. Jaffna Hindu College and Manipay Hindu College. However, the end result was that proportion of the educated Tamils increased. I have no knowledge of how the communities measured in terms educational achievements on those days. It might have been that British adopted the divide and rule policy and purposely and excluded the Sinhala masses; I do not know. But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British!

So, in order to counter the Sinhala Subjugation by the British, the Sinhala needed to subjugate the minorities; is this your position? If Nelson Mandela had adopted this logic, what would have happened to the Whites in South Africa; one wonders!

You said:
“Really it was not the majority community that demanded for the greater share. It is evident from the 50-50 demand by a less than 15% of the population. I can remember, BalangodaMan has shown this fact in one of his recent posts.”

The 50-50 demand was nonsense from G.G Ponnampalam though it was 50% for Sinhala and 50% for all the minorities. However, it was demanded during independence debate; subsequently, all parties settled on the 1948 constitution as a basis for taking the country forward. D.S. Senanayake along with other Sinhala leaders assured the Tamil leaders that the minorities would come to no harm! In fact the opposite happened; do you agree?

I said:
The irony is that, the 1948 constitution that facilitated Westminster style electoral system had in fact rested the political control over to the Sinhaha majority.

You said
“ Really the Tamil minority wanted the political control (Please see BalangodaMan’s post I referred above) but they were no able to realize it. However, there were Tamils in the that administration. It is natural to majority getting the control over minority getting it.”

Come On Mr. Yapa; this is pathetic; the electoral system rested power with the majority; the minority communities were at the mercy of the majority community; we all know what happened since! Yes, there were Tamils in that administration; what is your point?

I said:
The majority community, instead of building a nation of Sri Lankans, it embarked on a series of discriminatory programmes asserting its prominence while jettisoning moral principles of democracy and the very Buddhism that you valiantly trying to safeguard. Until 1974, the Tamils stuck to the principles of democracy and Gandhian Ahimsa.

You said:
“This is an emotional appeal. You point out only discriminatory programmes,
do you think they came out in a clean slate? Weren’t there any lapses from the part of Tamils? Were they really stuck to Gandhian Ahimsa till 1974? Such partial analyzes and the propaganda was one of the main reasons for the problem. Any solution that do not base on an objective and sincere assessment will not solve the problem. “All faults are yours” approach won’t work.”

Please correct my partial analysis; please outline the events that constitute violence on the part of the Tamils before 1974.

Also, since independence, what lapses that the Tamils responsible for? Was it that they failed to assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way? Please outline!

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 19, 2010 @ 12:20 am

Dear Ordinary Lankan,

Thanks for the article on Kamma as well as your previous article. I have no problem with an introspective belief system. I have strong problems with a belief system which claims to guard holy truths. I subscribe to your brand of Buddhism and would *never* oppose a personal quest for meaning, but I will have no stock with the latter brand, which to me, is a one way path to an insular, delusory and bigoted belief system.

Unfortunately, I have been informed, by devout practitioners on this forum, that I subscribe to a dilute form of Buddhism repackaged for western consumption. That may very well be true and I’m willing to accept that.

Therefore, can someone very kindly tell me, what the Buddha really said in some sutta or the other, about Kamma? Is it a concept of justice? I’m not interested in repackaged western stuff.

No one needs to care what others choose to believe in their personal lives. But we are all duty-bound to correct any perverted ideas that are spreading across our society. In that regard I strongly object to
1. Custodianship of holy truths – pure, unadulterated BS which leads to an insular, paranoid society
2. Twisted interpretations of Kamma etc. which are essentially unjust with regard to the suffering of individuals
3. Uncritical acceptance of omniscient authorities and especially their earthly representatives, the sangha

Make sure ideas like these are expunged from the mainstream and I think Buddhist ethics would certainly have an improving effect on our society. Would you agree with me Ordinary Lankan?

cheers,
/SD

Off the Cuff said,

May 19, 2010 @ 1:00 am

Dear BalangodaMan,

You say
“When we were kids we thought it is not good to give money to the beggars. This was for two reasons. (1) that they were bad people in past lives and (2) by giving them money we will be depriving them from truly suffering and that will prolong the period in which they have to suffer.”

Who taught you that BS?

No wonder you are so mixed up about Buddhism

The rest of your post based on BS is also BS

BTW BM, If you want to address a question to me address your post to me.
Don’t hide your question in the body of an innocuous looking post addressed to one of your buddies.

Off the Cuff said,

May 19, 2010 @ 1:33 am

Dear SomewhatDisgusted,

“the person suffering doesn’t even *know* what he/she is being punished for”

Pertinent question and I believe your answer is also pertinent.

I believe that Kamma (Premeditated or Thoughtful Action) and Vipaka (result) is a cause and effect. I do not think the concept has anything to do with “Justice” in an afterlife though it can be seen as such in the current life.

A person falling down and hurting himself is not a punishment meted out by Gravity. Its just the order of things. I believe that Kamma is similar.

BalangodaMan said,

May 19, 2010 @ 3:07 am

OTC,

“Who taught you that BS?”

Glad you asked. You see, we were only maybe 6-10 years old. But we were able to deduce this …

“When we were kids we thought it is not good to give money to the beggars. This was for two reasons. (1) that they were bad people in past lives and (2) by giving them money we will be depriving them from truly suffering and that will prolong the period in which they have to suffer.” (my statement)

… from the principles of karma that we were taught – essentially the same as what you chaps are promoting (in order to hasten our salvation I acknowledge and say thanks). I’m sure you are a grown up adult. How come you reach a different conclusion? How come the kids can figure out logic and you can’t? (or won’t?)

Let’s examine: No (1) we have established in this thread. So no argument. No (2) is the logical consequence any 10 year old can work out.

Are you sure you are actually promoting this correctly, and not just writing illogical, inconsistent stuff to confuse everybody? Next you could be accused of being a Western plot to unsettle the Wonder of Asia.

I still do not know how the doer ( the person committing bad karma) is connected with the sufferer (the person born at another time) under Buddhism. I have searched the net for this – no joy.

It sounds like ‘Fall Guys ‘R’ US’. You can do all sorts of crimes and someone far away in another land, another time, even another religion (preferably!) takes the rap for it. Did no one ask the Buddha to explain? Or are we the first to ask?

The practical problem is (asked before. no answer from anyone) if karma is promoted for its value as a deterrent will this brand of explanation actual deter anyone from doing bad things? That is, if the vipaka is suffered by some other dude we will never meet, why would we care? (already asked this in the Hitler example)

(Or vice versa – it’s like if your credit card gets cloned. Someone in Moscow buys things with it and you get lumbered with the bill! At least in that case there is a common thread in the credit card number/account. But not in karma > rebirth, apparently)

Is it random? That is, the doctrine says every (thoughtful) action will have a result, though not necessarily involving the person who had the thoughtful action. That is, the law of karma is happy as long as SOMEONE (anyone) pays for it. (jolly !) Like if the crime rate says there have been 80 murders the karmic police just need to ensure that 80 people (of any generation) are on death row, any 80 people.

wijayapala said,

May 19, 2010 @ 7:40 am

OTC,

“When people LIE they forget their past utterances, easily”

Wow this is rather heavy language to use against such an intellectual heavyweight like Sujewa. I feel that these harsh words that you used on him deserve a response that reflects the depth and nuanced sophistication that we’ve come to expect from Sujewa:

“I doubt you have the balls to deny what I wrote above about “Temple Building” and your family”

Sounds good.

“You have a problem with the TRUTH as you seem to be a Chronic LIAR.”

Sounds good.

“You have a problem with LANGUAGE as you cannot comprehend the language that you write.”

Sounds good. What did I write?

“You have a problem with MEMORY as you cannot even remember what you wrote less than THREE Months back.”

Sounds good. Wait, what was that I just said?

“There is a saying “It’s possible to argue with a hundred wise men but not possible to argue with ONE fool”

Sounds good. But how would you deal with the Dhammapada variety of fool: the fool who believes himself to be wise?

“That is your character. You ask a question very authoritatively with a lot of aplomb and flair but when the Answer is not palatable you slither quietly away.”

Sounds good. (this is my cue to slither away)

wijayapala said,

May 19, 2010 @ 8:00 am

Ordinary Lankan,

“Well, I could understand doing something like that. I’ve seen impulses of rage and fear and frustration arise in my mind that could motivate such an awful act.”

Aww what a touching story. However, secular agnostics claim that the mind is an illusion, case closed. Therefore, your moment of empathy was entirely fraudulent. Sorry!

RR said,

May 19, 2010 @ 10:15 am

A superficial understanding of kamma can lead to blaming the unfortunate for their own misfortunes, similar to the modern thinking that takes satisfaction in one’s position and blaming the unsuccessful for their own distresses. (And adding to their burdens as a righteous act.). Whereas the Buddhist perspective is of course that they deserve nothing less than complete freedom from suffering.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

May 19, 2010 @ 10:40 am

Dear Wijayapala,

You said: “I hope that after Professor SomewhatDisgusted reads that, he’ll stop claiming that the Buddha stole samsara from Hinduism.”

I don’t claim that. BuddhaNet does. To quote: “The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. “ – http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

We’ve already discussed this, although you now seem to suffer from amnesia about it and you know there are enough reputed sources which make the same claim. So it appears that it is Professor Wijayapala who claims that this is a unique invention by the Buddha. Do you plan on buttressing your argument?

If you are going to harp on the specific word Hinduism. Don’t really care whether it’s Hinduism or Shramana’s or whatever. The point is, it predated Buddhism. If you wish to argue otherwise, state your case.

cheers,
/SD

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 19, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

OTC,

I see the believer rage continues. I guess that’s the defalult mode for politcial/fake Buddhists to go to when they cannot show why they think K,R.N are real. Though your meltdown is amusing & entertaining, I will clarify the following, though it makes no difference to me as to whether you or anyone else believes it or not:

“What is the TRUTH Sujewa, did THREE generations of your Family ACTUALLY Build Buddhist Temples? That’s unbelievable, how can THREE GENERATIONS of ONE FAMILY be involved in building Temples, Buddhist Temples at that?”

If you want to do some reading, you can pick up my grand uncle Bhante Gunaratana’s autobiography, & in it, he talks about how his poor but deeply faithful father (one of my great grandfathers) built the first temple in their village (now that’s the term used by the monk, don’t ask me about the dimensions of the temple, or what it’s called in pali, etc. – it is probably a small place, as it was built by poor farmers using means available to them, & not kings or whatever), anywhere, here’s the book link:
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Mindfulness-Autobiography-Bhante-G/dp/0861713478
Just look for the paragraph with my last name in it, that’s what I am referencing above. It is early on in the book.
So that’s one temple.

Then, in the early 1980′s, my dad helped with building a Buddhist meditation center in Virginia, & I helped (not much, was young, but I did help, got pictures to prove it – hammering nails & such) So that’s 3 generations of the same family helping with temple building. (i am sure at least dozens more members in the fam have had roles in creating or sustaining temples is SL & US – the fam is VAST in numbers by modern US standards, but maybe just above average by SL standards)

Anyway, it makes no difference to me whether narrow minded political/fake Buddhists believe in what I’ve said about my relationships to Buddhism & the family’s relationship to Buddhism. And, by the way, many temples in Sri Lanka were built with donated labor – something called shramadana – that a fake/political Buddhist like you probably does not know much about – thus, having family members who built temples or helped to build temples is not a massive deal or not something highly unusual in some parts of Sri Lanka. But, since one of your diversionary tactics is to change the subject to side matters when you cannot deal with the issue at hand, I thought I’d resolve the diversionary issue & get back to KRN & other speculative items in Buddhism – oh wait, the believers, for the most part, gave up on that, well I guess then we don’t have much to discuss. But when you forget that Buddhism is a speculative/faith based religion I’ll jump back in to remind you how K,R.,N cannot be proven as real to a non-believer. Maybe it will help to keep your believer arrogance & hate in check (or maybe not, but i guess all a non-believer like me can do is try

Sounds good doesn’t it [& this post goes out to your fake/angry/political Buddhist buddy Wijayapala too]

- S
“STILL keeping cool while dealing with raging, irrational, fake/political believers (since 2010 ”

Sur said,

May 19, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

“1. That the Buddha actually existed.

2. That the Buddha existed in the way that he is described in Buddhism.”

Does it really matter if the Buddha existed or not? Unlike in Christianity, with the resurrection of Jesus Christ being a central belief. Suppose the Buddha never existed — how does that invalidate Buddhist teachings? The Buddha himself said that he was only a teacher who showed the way to freedom from suffering, it is up to us as individuals to follow that path if we want to. Whether a Buddha exists or not, the path to freedom is available.

“3. That the Buddha in fact discovered a way out of suffering – in the Buddhist view all of existence is suffering – so, a way out of existence – & since Buiddhists believe in rebirth – a way out of being reborn.”

It can be confirmed by experience. For example, I can confirm personally that meditation has made me a calmer person. I suffer less as a result.

Also, all of existence is not suffering. This is not a Buddhist view. You are mistaken. Even in the higher meditative states such as Jhana there is bliss. What Buddhism does teach, however, is change and impermanence which is unsatisfactory. Perhaps you need to read more on Buddhism before making sweeping claims that have no basis in fact.

“It does not seem any more effective or factual than the other major religions.”

Do other religions teaching anything like the following:

———-

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor ,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
– The Buddha, Kalama Sutta

Thus, the Buddha provides ten specific sources which should not be used to accept a specific teaching as true, without further verification:

- Oral history
- Traditional
- News sources
- Scriptures or other official texts
- Suppositional reasoning
- Philosophical reasoning
- Common sense
- One’s own opinions
- Authorities or experts
- One’s own teacher

Instead, he says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it.

- wiki

———-

Also, all other major religions place a Supreme Creator God at the centre of the religion. Buddhism places the Four Noble Truths at the centre… which your fellow agnostic ‘somewhat disgusted’ has already admitted is intuitive… ie verifiable and able to be understood and experienced in the here and now.

“4. This is another way of saying #3 – but it may be clearer – that Buddha discovered or experienced nirvana & that nirvana is in fact a real thing that exists/that actual humans can experience. Also karma cannot be verified to be real, an item related to nirvana (& we already mentiond rebirth, another related item).”

But the claim of Buddhism is that it can be experienced, not necessarily in a future life but here and now. Karma has explained in various other posts, does make sense. It is directly observable in the physical world.

“5. That following the Eight Fold Path & rest of Buddhism leads to nirvana. Since no one other then the Buddha, some 2500 years ago, reportedly, claimed to have reached or achieved nirvana (outside of religous stories), certainly no one w/ in the last 100 years that I’ve heard of.”

But according to Buddhist teaching, those who have realised Nirvana do not claim to have realised nirvana (the Buddha excepted). They do not claim to be enlightened even if they are. The Buddha himself said that there is no difference between a Buddha and an Arahant (someone who has realised nirvana) except that the Buddha shows the path ‘for the first time.’

“1. Over 2000 years of Buddhism left Sri Lanka a mess, out of which it is barely stating to recover after the 26+ year civil war that was caused in part by Buddhists refusing to recognize equal rights of the Tamil minority.”

Buddhism gave Sri Lanka its Golden Age. It’s pretty reductionist to blame whatever mess there is on Buddhism.

“Buddhism is just another of the many ways that humans have created to attempt to deal with the uncertainties, injustice, & mystery of life. It does not seem any more effective or factual than the other major religions.”

This is just your opinion, it is not intuitive. I think the Four Noble Truths are more factual than a Supreme Creater God living in the heavens, for example.

“- Many people who are raised in Buddhism develop a strong attachment to it – as can be seen by the comments in this thread – and are unable to look outside of it.”

Applicable to you and your beliefs as well….

“- For all its concerns about the suffering of others, etc. – Buddhism is a blood & soil faith – used by the Sinhalese for hundreds of years to maintain territorial control & control over fellow members of the tribe. In this sense, it is no less violent than any of the other religions in this world.”

Actually, the history of Buddhism is far less violent than the history of either Christianity or Islam.

“they will make up heroic figures such as the Buddha & fictional concepts such as karma, rebirth, nirvana ”

You call yourself an agnostic? Righteo. I thought you call yourself an agnostic because you ‘don’t know’ whether something exists or not or is real or not. You seem to have already made up your mind. Guess you missed agnosticism101

ordinary lankan said,

May 19, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Reply to Post by Balangoda Man
But the Buddha’s field of study was … what was going on in HIS mind. Not about bonding with other humans in a new-age kind of brotherhood, in a kind of group-huggy sort of way. Most (if not all) of the teachings is totally consistent AND RELEVANT in the context of quiet personal contemplation of whose who have, or desire to, escape from society’s stresses and responsibilities. Where we have a problem is when people try to fit the ‘musings of an ascetic’ to society, and MODERN society at that.

There are 3 views expressed here and I would like to offer my own suggestions on them – based on my own experience as a Buddhist practitioner. We are drinking in the same tavern and you look at my drink and say – good for you but not for me… I walk up to you and sit down and sell you a story and then offer a sip – take a sip man – just try it and see …
wont kill you

1. That Buddha’s contemplation was confined to HIS mind – it is significant that you use capital HIS

2. That he was not advocating universal brotherhood as such

3. That his approach was an escape from society’s stresses and responsibilities

My suggestions
1. Buddha was initially motivated to seek the truth by witnessing the suffering of others – and these were old age and death. He knew that these things would also visit him and wanted to discover how this suffering could be overcome. He realized that every life that was born would experience these things – that old age and death was conditioned by birth. Thus physically there was no way we could avoid these things. But he realized that there was in addition to physical suffering – mental suffering. When probing this he found that the reason for mental suffering was our refusal to accept reality and wanting things to be different. When we fall sick we feel we have ‘lost’ our health because we thought that we ‘had’ and ‘possessed’ good health. When we are robbed of something we suffer thinking – earlier we had this – now we have lost it. This sense of loss is a very basic cause for human suffering. Buddha asked – is there really an owner – of these thoughts and feelings; of these body parts – of these bodily sensations?

He could not find an owner. In Buddhism we do not deny the individuality of the process we know as a human being. We simply deny that there is an individual within the process. Every onion is different but no onion has a core. And he found that the reason for our mental suffering was that we were attached to something we did not in fact own. It was based on a mistaken notion of ownership. When he stopped clinging and let go and threw everything back to nature he was free. No effort was really needed. He needed to stop struggling and stop striving. In his supreme calmness – Samadhi – he saw things as they were – without the blinkers of likes and dislikes and he saw that samsara was a state of delusion. The moment delusion was seen through and discarded samsara became nirvana.

He discovered that there was matter – and he also discovered emptiness – sheer space. And within this space, thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations would appear and disappear. What you and I call a body is just a bundle of sensations to the meditator. What you and I call mind – YOUR mind – MY mind – is just a silent emptiness which registers a variety of thoughts and feelings.

[I see your challenge on emotions – cannot cover it in this post – may be later]
The negative thoughts and feelings he boxed into three main categories – Likes, Dislikes and what he was Indifferent to. By learning these things about ‘his’ mind he also learned by analogy that other human beings were also experiencing the same 3 baskets of defilements or pollutants. Modern psychology accepts wholeheartedly that all human beings learn about others by learning about yourself. The deeper you relate to yourself and your thoughts and feelings the deeper insight you can have as to how others think and feel. Conversely if you don’t access your feelings and have no words to identify and describe them you also don’t relate to the feelings of others. In a sense there was nothing extra-ordinary about his method. He just went a great distance in this direction.

So his contemplation – or scientific observation was confined to his mind – but one of his conclusions was that this mind itself had no owner as such. It was inherently free. Through endless wanderings in samsara it had confined itself to narrow patterns by seeking to own the different physical bodies he had acquired. He obtained freedom by letting go of both body and mind. In other words he dropped the attachment he had for HIS body and HIS mind. Through his exploration he sought the reasons for the suffering minds of all human being and laid out the reasons for suffering. This is why he said – of two things only do I teach – suffering and how to end it.

It is true that he put an end to his own suffering by attaining enlightenment. But this enabled his 45 years teaching and helping mission. He was effective in dealing with the suffering of others – because he had learnt to deal with his own suffering. So this is a lesson for all modern day teachers and helpers. Master yourself before you seek to master others. Help yourself before you seek to help others. Free yourself before you seek to free others. Buddha took no prisoners. He freed people. Does that seem a common sensical and practical way to set about things or does it seem selfish to you?

In today’s context there is no Buddha but his message is clear. And those who commit themselves to the path can teach by example and precept. The solution is always personal. Buddha addressed individuals and sought to help them – whether they were kings or beggars. It is when you turn this way of life into a collective solution – as happened in SL that people become lazy and sit on their bums preaching a whole lot of dhamma without practising a word. So agnostics – my point is this. Mankind has relied on many ideologies – collective solutions which appear to have failed. My suggestion is that no ideology can be effective without the personal commitment – and this cannot be forced or imposed. It has to come voluntarily from within. And there is no need to label a good deed. It is simply a good deed. Same goes for truth. The most important thing is not to be a good Buddhist or Christian or Muslim or Agnostic or what have you. It is to be a good human being. Every good man of religion uses a professional approach to become a good human being. That is it.

2. Buddha walked his talk – he walked hundreds and thousands of miles in Northern India – he worked tirelessly through 45 years to help those who could be helped. He knew that people were at different levels of intelligence so he worked at different ways of teaching. It is compassion that makes one a good communicator or teacher. His whole ministry was a monumental act of compassion. The sangha itself was the brotherhood he founded – the company of good and wise friends who would support each other in their search for truth. The meaning of sangha is not confined to the ordained but interpreted broadly includes all committed seekers of truth.
Once two Brahmin youth came to him and asked how they could get close to their God the Brahma. Now Buddha wanted to help them and he taught them the four divine abodes – metta, karuna, muditha and upekkha the sublime states of the heart that must be cultivated to be a friend to both one self and the rest of the world. Please note the fact that Buddha thought it not necessary to wean these two youth away from Brahmanism but showed them a way to get closer to ‘their God’. He was not interested in promoting Buddhism as such. He was a pragmatic helper as well.

3. Being a friend to yourself – having a relationship with yourself – being comfortable in your own company without seeking distractions – How many people can do this in a world full of ‘body killing weapons and mind killing distractions?’ this is the foundation for a good heart – being truly happy and content with your own company. This is an important part of our basic training. In fact this is how some people benefit from long stays in the prison – they emerge stronger than before. (PS – don’t tell this to the powers that be because they will devise other methods of punishment.) The basic advise on meditation given at Nillambe is as follows –

“A deep listening, with kindness and sensitivity, to our body, heart and mind. This attitude is then extended naturally to those around us. When awareness flows freely between self and others, unobstructed by artificial distinctions, we will not discriminate between ‘our hunger’ and ‘your hunger’ and ‘our feelings’ and ‘your feelings.’

This is the way we escape – and we escape to reality – not to a world constructed on neurotic thoughts and ideas but to what we see as the actual world sans certain ideas and concepts which only serve to increase our dissatisfaction – for example ‘justice’. What crimes have been committed in the long history of mankind in the name of justice? Who brought this concept and for what purpose? Was it the kings or their priests who taught people to see them as the founts of justice? And then finally the Europeans after killing each other in frenzied blood baths in 2 world wars discovered ‘human rights’ and now they go around the third world and tell us how to respect human rights. Buddhism gave no rights and it did not speak of justice – only of causes and consequences and the need for us to observe this without the aid of ideas foisted on us by rulers. Buddhism gave concrete ideas to people on how they should go to the source – the mind – and how they should tame the mind and then train it – with love and acceptance and not with self hatred. Now this escape that you speak of is therefore a search for sanity leaving the insanity of the neurotic mind behind.

I see the discussion between agnostics and believers as useful. It is a clash between the agnostics head and the hearts of believers – a necessary clash to deepen our faith in what is right and true. Although Buddha advocated freedom we must understand that people are at different evolutionary stages spiritually. Buddhists in Sri Lanka are not all trying to set up a Sinhala Buddhist state. How many votes did the JHU get?
There is no point trying to run Buddhism down to run down political Buddhists – make your target narrow and then take aim. Recreate tradition and re-interpret it – don’t reject it.

Good one SD on piggy backing on ordinary things and turning them into concepts – well in religion a concept is a tool – you use it and put it aside – Buddha himself said – use the raft (dhamma) to cross the river – but don’t carry the raft around after crossing – got to let go of everything – even attachment to Buddhist concepts – that is freedom – and a lot of people fear that kind of freedom – the fact that Buddha was not killed by some fanatic should by itself show his level of smartness and that he knew how to move in what you call the real world … and Dalai lama and Thich Nhat hanh are showing this today. I would definitely add Gandhi – non violence – old wine in new bottles – so this is the potential – and that is what we must embrace together….

Sujeewa reminds me so much of Ivan in Brothers Karamazov – I like the following propositions he set out

1. All human knowledge, being human knowledge, is accessible to, & is a part of, the intellectual & creative inheritance of all & every single human
2. Thus, an agnostic or a secularist is not separated by all aspects of human knowledge that is labeled Buddhism or Christianity, etc. Any useful items from those sets of ideas can be used by an agnostic as necessary.

Keep challenging Sinhala Buddhists but do it out of compassion – and take your challenge up one more level by challenging the Buddhists to get closer to real Buddhism – perhaps that is where you want them to go?

yapa said,

May 19, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

Dear BalangodaMan;

Have you heard of “Brahmadand”? I have imposed that on you.

Thanks!

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 19, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

OTC is still demonstrating his foolishness after I pointed out the temple building facts that he wanted me to point out.

OTC, since you want it spelled out simply & cannot gather the information for yourself, you are WRONG when you said I was lying about my family’s involvement in temple building, see my original reply comment above for the details: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/#comment-19090

On top of that, you are a fake/political Buddhist, who refuses to see what is plain – that Buddhism is a religion, with speculative items, and not some universal/undisputed truth of any great relevance to non-believers.

On top of that, since you like to call people’s bravery & cowardice into question, I’ll point out (once again) that you are a coward who hides behind a fake name during this discussion & insults people – easy to do when you cannot be held accountabel, isn’t it Fake Buddhist Coward?

Debating/discussing anything with you is a waste of time, however, to keep your paranoia & lying (promoting something that is speculative as truth) in check, I am glad to point out your false commitment to Buddhism and your inability to grasp facts – over, & over, & over – as long as necessary.

::

A basic & common strategy used by the believers (specially OTC, Yapa, Wijayapala) is to claim their opponent is dishonest, lying, etc. – since they know that K,R,N cannot be proven as real items & they fear that clearly admitting so will weaken the personal power (or the feel of it) they gain by claiming to be supporters/protectors/whatever of SL Buddhism.

These are desparate strategies of political/fake Buddhists who are trying to hold on to a vision of self-importance by laying claim to universal human ideas as their sole property (by attaching some pali words to it), & who claim speculative items are real – in order to fool people who are not as inquisitive as the agnostics here & gather power & other earthly good from those that they (the fake believers) are able to trick. Also, they use their so called “protection of Buddhism” argument to minimize the horrendous crimes commited against the Tamils by the Sinhalese (this of course is in no way an excuse for the horrendous (sp?) crimes commited by the LTTE against everyone else).

All the more reason why fair minded agnostics & other non-believers (& maybe even fair minded believers) need to take a close look at SL Buddhism in all its many manifestations (some good, some obviously evil – by juding from the writings of OTC, etc.). It’s reform time baby

::

And now, expect another rage filled diversionary comment from The Foolish Coward OTC – or TFCOTC, as he is now known.

::

- S

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 19, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

Hey Foolish Coward OTC (FCOTC)/Fake Buddhist #2,

All of the following that you pointed to, from an earlier post of mine, is true:

“I do know a lot of Sri Lankans who are Buddhist (my entire family pretty much – in the US, SL, & elsewhere – 100s of people). Was one myself – from birth (in SL, I moved out of the country at 12) to until about 16 – 18 or so – and I still read a lot & discuss Buddhism & am still in touch with temples & monks (though I am no longer a believer/practitioner – not down with bowing down to statues & monks & thinking only along the lines prescribed by Buddhism -, I appreciate the positive elements/the positve roles Buddhism & monks have played in the lives of Sri Lankans & specifically family members over the past several hundred years). So, as an aspect of both my & general human cultural heritage & history – I appreciate Buddhism (and, since we are breaking out Buddhism cred here, let me say that both of my grandfathers built & supported Buddhist temples in SL, & my dad & I helped build one here in the US – though that was mostly my dad, I was just a teenager helping out a little, and at present I indirectly support Buddhist institutions in the SL – a tiny bit – via $s sent to family members who use some of it to support temples, etc., & sometimes direcly here in the US via donations). However (here goes) there are some problems with SL Buddhism (here’s a brief list):”

Now that that diversionary tactic is dealth with, let’s ask a few questions:

- didn’t you already admit that you could not prove that karma, reincarnation, nirvana is real? So, I guess that’s your answer – you don’t like being asked uncomfortable questions, ones that expose the fake Buddhist/political Buddhist character of your life & commitment. You are opposed to any questions about Buddhism because it will personally weaken (in your opinion) your power & claims for greatness in this world.

Anyway, get used to lots more people asking the same questions that I am asking. Seeing the depth of your hatred & commitment to evil (lying, attempting to portray questions as something destructive, etc.) I am encouraged to re-double my efforts to get more & more people to question the grand claims made by SL Buddhism.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Sure does to me. As fake SL Buddhists are unable to reconcile the speculative nature of Buddhism with the 100% belief that fake Buddhists like you require of others in order to control them slowly withers away, I am sure we will see more & more of your true face – the evil, twisted, corrupted mind that wants a free ride in life (w/ out achieving anything on your own) by hiding behind an old religion.

- S

Off the Cuff said,

May 20, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Dear Wijeyapala,

Great Humour.
I could not help laughing

re your post at
http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/comment-page-9/#comment-19067

Off the Cuff said,

May 20, 2010 @ 1:14 am

Dear BalangodaMan,

“I still do not know how the doer ( the person committing bad karma) is connected with the sufferer (the person born at another time) under Buddhism. I have searched the net for this – no joy”

Pertinent question
I would like to refer you to my post May 19, 2010 @ 1:33 am addressed to SomewhatDisgusted in response to the same question by him.

“… if karma is promoted for its value as a deterrent will this brand of explanation actual deter anyone from doing bad things? ”

Karma is not a “Judicial System” to mete out punishment.
No one sits in Judgement.
No one metes out Punishment

“Glad you asked. You see, we were only maybe 6-10 years old. But we were able to deduce this …”

Some students add 1+1 and arrive at 2
Others add 1+1 and arrive at 3 or something other than 2

That’s also the order of things

Off the Cuff said,

May 20, 2010 @ 2:15 am

Dear Burning_Issue,

“But one thing is clear that, it was not the Tamils who excluded the Sinhala; it was the British! “

Absolutely True.

It is also true that the Tamils were the instrument that the British used to carry out that exclusion. The Generals directed the soldiers and the soldiers executed the directions. The soldiers were Tamil. Who would you think the victims would start to hate more?

Pre Independence Government Bureaucracy had a Tamil majority.
Post independence was a continuation of that.
Retiring age of a public servant was 55 years. Hence this imbalance did continue after independence. It would continue for decades though the Government was democratically elected.
The following Government Departments had a majority of Tamil officers
Inland Revenue
Post and Telecom
Immigration
Customs
Electrical Dept
Justice
Railways
(that are some that I can remember there may be others. please correct me if I am wrong)

The Majority employer was the Govt. and a Govt job was sought after. A Govt job ensured a successful marriage as even a govt clerk was sought after by parents of prospective brides.

There were some Dept Heads that actively favoured Tamils during recruitment. The deprivation of govt jobs did not help the Tamil community as the Sinhalese who were victimised during British rule continued to receive similar treatment after independence.

Ignoring these while enhancing the reaction to it won’t help in creating a singular Sri Lankan Identity. I beleive that this is something that Yapa tries to emphasize.

Tamils are Sri Lankans. They should have equal rights as any other citizen. This includes the upcountry Tamils. Not only Tamils but all other communities should have equal rights.

The Sinhalese are the majority in SL. It is a fact of life and the Sinhalese can’t be blamed for it. The Buddhist form the majority amongst the Sinhalese, that is also a fact of life and the Buddhists can’t be blamed for it either.

Heshan said,

May 20, 2010 @ 3:09 am

Dear Readers:

To add further to my last remarks:

Karma, if it were true, would imply there was a sense of order in the Universe, albeit an order based on pre-determined pre-defined notions of morality . In other words, karma can only work if you define “good” and “bad” in advance, before the “act” to which you apply a karma judgment actually occurs. Objectively speaking, I would ask the following questions: how many laws of the Universe, how much of the behavior of nature, can we say falls under the domain of morality? The answer is zero. Morality is entirely a human construct. Humans have not existed during most of the age of the Universe. So clearly the Universe does not need morality to sustain itself. But without morality, as I pointed out in the last post, karma does not make sense.

BalangodaMan said,

May 20, 2010 @ 3:53 am

RR,

“Whereas the Buddhist perspective is of course that they deserve nothing less than complete freedom from suffering.”

Would you say the same to convicted prisoners serving sentences for horrendous crimes? How are you differentiating between a human born into misfortune and this prisoner on death row perhaps?

Is it the degree of crime?
Is it because the crime (sin) was perpetrated in some other time, in some other place, by some other person?
Is it because there is no transparency in this justice system?
Is it because we are assuming that (how?) this person has already been punished in the criminal justice system in the previous birth?

How? Why?
Or is this also one those questions we are told not to ask?

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 20, 2010 @ 5:01 am

Ordinary Lankan,

RE: this comment & the entire post that it came from:

“Keep challenging Sinhala Buddhists but do it out of compassion – and take your challenge up one more level by challenging the Buddhists to get closer to real Buddhism – perhaps that is where you want them to go?”

A lot of good ideas in that post.

Yes, if the positive aspects of Buddhism were actually practiced by a significant number of Sri Lankans prior to ’48 & then ’48 on the State may have been able to (or could have been made to) sympathize with the Tamils & thus develop a just solution to the needs (then) of both the Sinhalese and the Tamils. It is primarily this failure – the failure of the Sinhalese to translate positive ideas that are contained in Buddhism; such as (according to the Buddhism i was taught) anti-race/anti-racist stance, the amazing potential of each individual, etc. – that made me realize that Buddhism is just another set of human ideas – people can be born into it, can be surrounded by it all day, but if they (the ideas) are not properly interperted & applied – then the results may be a long civil war, poverty, etc. So, obviously the way Buddhism is practiced by a majority of the Sinhalese, or even if it is practiced properly (in a useful to all way), that alone is not enough for successfully tackling the problems of a post-colonial, economically under developed, non-industrial/industrializing country. Thus, a positive agnostic approach to all systems & bodies of knowledge – as in – take a close look at all grand claims & see if they are true before adopting them to a given situation – is necessary, in my opinion. Buddhism is obviously not the only path for personal & national happiness & success in this world. There are many other paths – such as the basic one of identifying problems that need to be solved, taking a look at all possible best ways for solving the problems, & then finally trying a few out & using the best method (regardless of where – Western, Eastern, etc. & from whom – Tamils, Japanese, the British, etc. – the idea came from) – that could lead to an improved quality of life in SL & the diaspora. One of the obstacles to such a utilitarian apporach is the notion expressed by some hard core believers of Buddhism in SL: that the Buddhist path is the best path for SL, & to try any other would be treasonous, etc. type argument. Any fair reader of world history can see that the Sinhala Buddhists have not been great at turning Sri Lanka into a nice place to live for all who are born there or all who want to live there. So, what’s the solution – perhaps a secular government in practice & building up of secular institutions so that non-Sinhala Buddhists can contribute easily to SL & also feel like first class citizens, & such institutions can develop a common Sri Lankan identity outside of the left-over Sinhala or Tamil tribal identities. There is one area of life where this agnosticism towards methods/not immediately commiting to one path because it is familiar, etc., is readily accept (acknowledged or not, it is accepted in practice) – & that’s in the militaries. If you look around, all militaries – whether they are the SL military or the Chinese or the Iranian or the US – want the best weapons & the best – proven in practice methods – for their soldiers – since war is a life or death thing. There is no “these weapons are western thus we can’t or we shouldn’t use them” attitude in the modern militaries. So, people are able to grasp the concept of “useful ideas regardless of where they originate from” in some instances – this is the kind of approach I want to promote for all other areas of life where problems need to be solved. So, approaching the development of Sri Lanka w/ a Buddhism first attitude, in my opinion, is not wise. Primiarily because SL Buddhism is not the repository of all useful human knowledge – there is no one body of knowledge that has that. However, SL Buddhism – the positive interpertation of it – can produce ethically aware & open, intellectually fearless, individuals who can tell the difference between a good thing and an evil thing, regardless of the packaging (nationalistic or pleasing to a sense of historical identity or a sense of tribal or racial loyalty, etc.) that the thing comes in. The best thing that religions can do, in my opinion, is to universalize individuals – meaning – that the individual is taught to identify as much with the common humanity that he shares with all humans past, present, & future just as he or she natually identifies with the local identity that they are given (individual name, immediate family or community membership, etc.). So, yeah, there are lots of good ideas in Buddhism, but when Buddhism is used as a tool of national organization, those ideas get lost – thus – a secular approach to national organization & keeping religions separate as a powerful aid for individuals to live meaningful & useful lives (for those who need religions). At the core of my own evolving Positive Human (that’s my term for my personal brand of agnosticism, which some here think is not agnosticism at all world view are the positive aspects of SL Buddhism and the ways in which they differ from the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in SL – which was one of the first things that I learned about the giganctic gap between theory (Buddhism) & practice (how the Sinhalese majority could not create a peaceful, inclusive, fast developing country that supports each individual regardless of group identity after independence in SL).

- S

yapa said,

May 20, 2010 @ 6:16 am

Dear Off the Cuff;

You say;

[Let us see what shallow explanation that you come up with this time, as I have now met your challenge by showing you the post where you Bragged about your Pious family.]

Can you remember I was telling, this forum is a “market place” for him? He has many cheap things to sell here. His blogs, movies, his identity, his image, his family……..and what not. May be these people think that they get knowledge and intelligence power and authority though the merits their parents have done or said to have done. Or they think they come in inheritance, to comment and criticize anything and everything without any hesitation. It is a fortunate that these self loving swollen headed babies are out of our country, Soon, SomewhatDisgusted will wake up with “ticks” all over his body.

Thanks!

wijayapala said,

May 20, 2010 @ 7:48 am

Hi Burning_Issue,

Ugghh, did you see Sujewa E’s last post?? It was like one long neverending stream of diarrhea mess being dumped all over poor Ordinary Lankan! Was Sujewa so busy unloading that he forgot to divide his thoughts into paragraphs???

“After the partition, India could have moved towards a Hindu based nation thus driving out rest of the Muslim across the border; they didn’t; India stood firm even when BJP enjoyed popular support among the Hindus grassroots.”

Perhaps at the national level. But what about the state level where Hindu-Muslim strife continued (Babri Mosque etc)?

“The killing of 3000 Sikhs is more to do with the 3rd world mob mentality.”

I disagree; the anti-Tamil riots in SL and anti-Sikh riots in India had one key thing in common: neither of them were spontaneous episodes of violence. Both were orchestrated by the governments in power (UNP and Congress respectively). It is not a “mob mentality” that is so pernicious but rather the relative power that politicians wield in these societies. They intentionally keep countries backward so that the people will be dependent on them.

“So, do you agree that, “90%” includes all communities?”

Well, obviously not the English-speakers!

“I never said that the Soulbury Constitution was wrong for Sri Lanka; I was merely pointing out that, the Sinhala did not have to go over board as the power was with the majority.”

Sounds good, but my point was that the Sinhalese did not have such a wonderful alternative. The choice literally was between 1) English-speaking UNP elitists utterly disconnected with the country and 2) English-speaking elitist but communalist SWRD who at least gave lip service to the language issue. If you were an average Sinhala, which one would you have voted for?

Today interestingly enough the Sinhala voter can choose only between 1) Don Juan Ranil utterly disconnected with the country and 2) King Mahinda VII (#6 had lived in the year 1187 CE). I forgot to mention ex-Field Marshal-turned-deck swab Sarath Fonseka who got the Tamil vote even though he said Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country. Is it any wonder that the last election turnout was so low?

Off the Cuff said,

May 20, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Dear BalangodaMan,

You say “The challenge is, next time you self-hypnotise (meditation is self-hypnosis – now tell me that’s not true!) “

I have already conveyed that three days ago (my post of May 17, 2010 @ 4:59 pm)

You claimed you are a practitioner.
I asked you how you escaped from getting “Self Hypnotized”

No answer yet

But Three days later you keep repeating it. Why?

yapa said,

May 20, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Addition……

(A). Also, since independence, what lapses that the Tamils responsible for? Was it that they failed to assimilate into the Sinhala Buddhist way? Please outline!

(B). Not at all. I think the answer is included in my previous answers.

Thanks!

BalangodaMan said,

May 20, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

OTC,

“There are a large number of intellectuals in the Christian West. There are as many in the Moslem world. Both these communities overwhelmingly believe in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and loving Creator God. Such beliefs has an overwhelming number of absurdities within yet these highly knowledgeable, analytical and intelligent people still prefer to believe in those Religions.

So what is the point that you are trying to make?”

The point is easy.

(First, these intelligent people are not all Chirstians and Muslims. It is the insular SL mentality that if someone is not Buddhist he must be Christian or Muslim or Hindu. But that is irrelevent to the argument)

If intelligent people exist (surely they do) then they would also conclude, as you do, that on the available evidence Buddhism is the absolute truth (as you do). But they do not.

This has only these alternative reasons.

(1) they are not convinced (based on the available evidence)
or (2) they are wrapped up in their own religious brainwashing to consider an alternative view (as you point out)
or (3) there are no intelligent people on Earth other than the Buddhists.

My commentary:
if (1) that concurs with the Agnostics
if (2) that is the same scenario as the Buddhist Believers
if (3) oh well!

Hope that’s clearer. Happy to join the dots for you.

MEDITATION
————-

Oh gosh! If you do not understand meditation then we are in real trouble – because the whole of Buddha’s significance in history and knowledge stems from a result of meditation.

As I said, I recommend it to all. But we need to be clear about what it is.

In answer to your comment, meditation (self-hypnosis) is something you do for say 20 mins. During that experience you ‘install’ positive conditioning (eg. confidence, stop-smoking etc). When you ‘awake’ those things you install in your subconscious mind drive your ‘conditioned responses’ in everyday activities. For example, compassion meditation is where you install the conditioning that your enemies are actually your friends. That changes your attitude and behaviour towards people who normally you would react to as enemies, with your own hostility. (you can of course just go into a self-hypnosis trance and enjoy the calmness for itself. That is good also. Clears your mind).

So, in answer to your question, you do not ‘escape from being self-hypnotised’. You just wake up (by counting down) and you carry on but much envigorated mentally, calmer, alert, happy, amiable.

Your desire to dismiss this as fluff shows that you do not really take Buddhism seriously at all

Pity.

Arosha Bandara said,

May 20, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

Dear BalangodaMan,

I have been following the posts on this thread (and the previous Akon Thread) for some time now. I noted that on a number of occasions you have described meditation as ‘self-hypnosis’, and was wondering where in the Buddha’s teachings on meditation you came to this view. You give the example of Loving-Kindness meditation (Compassion meditation) as a form of self-hypnosis, but this is just a tool the Buddha provided for people to overcome fear and aversion. The Buddha never taught that Loving-kindness meditation alone is the path to enlightenment.

My understanding is that meditation in the Theravada Buddhist tradition is for developing awareness (Sati) so that one can sees the characteristics of worldly phenomena – i.e. that they are impermanent and therefore cannot be depended upon (anicca) and because they cannot be depended on, they are unsatisfactory (dukkha) and finally that the entity we identify with as ‘I’/'myself’ is ultimately entirely composed of these impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena, and the identification with self is an illusion (anatta). By developing one’s mental acuity such that these properties of anicca, dukkha and anatta are seen in wordly things, desire for these things is eliminated and contentment becomes the abiding state of being.

So, could you please clarify your reasons for describing Buddhist meditation as a form of self-hypnosis?

Thank you.

BalangodaMan said,

May 20, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

Dear Arosha Bandara,

“So, could you please clarify your reasons for describing Buddhist meditation as a form of self-hypnosis?”

Yes, sure.

Please try and see this from outside the ‘Buddhist perspective’.

REACHING THE SUBCONSCIOUS MIND
————————————
There are many mysteries over the millennia that had great impact as our ancestors saw them that were interpreted as ‘mystical’ or having some ‘religious’ significance. Thunder and lightning was one. Nowadays we have a better understanding of what causes thunder.

The workings of, even the existence of, the *subconscious mind* was not known about until the last century. Now we understand it quite well – at least well enough to use that understanding to invoke conditions in subjects at will, including ourselves. There are huge industries today that apply what we know (what scientists have discovered) about reaching the subconscious mind of people.

The self-hypnosis phenomenon explains a whole bunch of ancient mysteries – from the effectiveness of prayer (effectiveness = how the person praying is helped) to what happens when you practice meditation (to claims of being posessed by the devil, or having a spiritual awakening).

To follow this up, you can do two things. (1) Look up Milton Ericson who pioneered the study into this, and present day well known writers on Neurosciences. (2) apply it yourself and see/compare the result.

You will see that the benefit of meditation is not from it being a religious experience – instead it is from ‘programming or re-programming the subconscious mind’. However, what you actually choose to ‘fix’ when in trance may be part of your chosen agenda, and this may have a religious purpose (including a religious purpose others may have for you, unfortunately!).

Happy to share more of my experience if you like, and hear of other people’s.

Arosha Bandara said,

May 20, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

Dear Balangoda Man,

What is the basis for saying that the existence or understanding of the subconscious mind was not known until the last century? I can agree that meditation is about re-programming the mind – although, as you know, Buddhists call this training the mind rather than re-programming. If meditation was widely practiced during (and before) the Buddha’s time and the Buddha described techniques such as Metta meditation in order to overcome fear of spirits/demons (Background to the Metta Sutta), then surely there was a good understanding of the subconscious mind even back then?

Thanks for pointing me towards the reading material – I was interested to read about Milton Erickson’s use of metaphor to induce behavioural change in his subjects. Has interesting parallels with the use of metaphors and simile in Buddhist scripture.

In the context of this thread I would consider myself closer to the believers than the agnostics, in that my experiences give me more reasons to be confident about the Buddha’s teaching than be sceptical. However, at the same time I am not a supporter of the view that Sri Lanka should “give to Buddhism the foremost place” (as stated in article 9 of the constitution). Whilst commentators such as Wijayapala have argued that without such a clause Buddhism would have disappeared from Sri Lanka, I don’t buy that – history records that Buddhism virtually disappeared from Sri Lanka several times before (see Buddhism in Sri Lanka) but was re-established. On the other hand, the codification of the pre-eminence of Buddhism in Sri Lanka into the constitution has created a culture of superiority amongst Sinhalese Buddhists that has done more harm than good.

Thank you.

Burning_Issue said,

May 20, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

Dear Wijayapala,

“Perhaps at the national level. But what about the state level where Hindu-Muslim strife continued (Babri Mosque etc)?”

I agree that in some states friction is higher than others e.g. Gujarat; however, in Hyderabad where a big Muslim community lives, there seems to be harmony. One needs to accept that the challenges that India faces is mammoth one; their foundation is strong and the democracy is improving year-by-year. A county like Sri Lanka needs to take a leaf out of their experience objectively.

“I disagree; the anti-Tamil riots in SL and anti-Sikh riots in India had one key thing in common: neither of them were spontaneous episodes of violence. Both were orchestrated by the governments in power (UNP and Congress respectively). It is not a “mob mentality” that is so pernicious but rather the relative power that politicians wield in these societies. They intentionally keep countries backward so that the people will be dependent on them.”

I agree that there were degrees of state orchestration; however, in the absence of “mob Mentality” people could not have been mobilised in such a scale. In Britain, there is BNP, they circulate inflammatory materials, organise events, and targeted protests but the society does not reciprocate despite being sympathetic to national sentiments! I agree that, the politicians could have done a lot more by way of progress in countries like India and Sri Lanka.

“Sounds good, but my point was that the Sinhalese did not have such a wonderful alternative. The choice literally was between 1) English-speaking UNP elitists utterly disconnected with the country and 2) English-speaking elitist but communalist SWRD who at least gave lip service to the language issue. If you were an average Sinhala, which one would you have voted for?”

I accept your point.

“Today interestingly enough the Sinhala voter can choose only between 1) Don Juan Ranil utterly disconnected with the country and 2) King Mahinda VII (#6 had lived in the year 1187 CE). I forgot to mention ex-Field Marshal-turned-deck swab Sarath Fonseka who got the Tamil vote even though he said Sri Lanka is a Sinhala country. Is it any wonder that the last election turnout was so low?”

Just imagine the predicament of the minorities!

Burning_Issue said,

May 20, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

Dear Yapa,

Please explain to me as to what Prof. J.B. Dissanayake meant by the following:

Prof. J. B. Dissanayake in his book ‘Understanding the Sinhalese’ at page 118 states:

“….Sinhala occupies a unique position among the languages of South Asia because of its close affinity, with two of the major linguistic families of the Indian sub continent Indo-Aryan and Dravidian…’ From this, one can conclude that Sinhala in written form could have been made by one or many, who knew both Dravidian and Aryan language. Thus early Dravidian Buddhist priests were scholars in Tamil, Pali and Sanskrit, to make Sinhala in spoken and written form possible.”

You said:

“I believe, Tamils came to Sri Lanka, several centuries after the Sinhalese built the civilization here. I pointed out this truth in another forum citing the research of a Tamil academic, Karthikesu Indrapala and others.”

So, given that the Tamil language had influenced the Sinhala language to such an extent; your statement that the Tamils arrived in Sri Lanka several years after Sinhala established their civilisation; this means that you established your civilisation with a half-baked language or some sort! It does not add up does it?

Was the civilisation established before the Buddhism arrived in Sri Lanka or after?

Please give me the source of Indrapala reference; is it his 1960s thesis, or the one he published a couple of years back?

BalangodaMan said,

May 21, 2010 @ 3:28 am

Dear Arosha ,

Sorry, a few spelling mistakes in my post.

It is Milton H. Erickson.
And John Grinder and Richard Bandler (often confused). NLP.

Sujewa Ekanayake said,

May 21, 2010 @ 7:10 am

Wijayapala,

RE:
“My liberal buddies believe that secularism and federalism will magically transform Sri Lanka into some sort of tolerant and advanced civilization, whereas I believe that it will produce an extremely fragile state that would easily be toppled by a strongman, whether a Wijeweera or a Prabakaran, if it is imposed without the people’s consent.”

Imposing anything without the people’s consent – specially any major changes – is a bad idea, I don’t see any agnostic here arguing otherwise. There are no magical transformations when it comes to changing countries. It is a long & experimental process, with progress happening in inches not miles at a time. However, there are already dozens of successful secular democracies around – where populations in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious contry can access govenment/govern themselves according to secular/non-religious concetps accepted by all parties. Also, just as Christianity was a source for the secular laws in the West, Buddhism can be a source for secular laws & practices in SL. Secularization or allowing room for non-believers or secularizing the government is not a massive change – or it does not have to be – it is a matter where religious considerations from one religion are secondary to the overall well being of the country. I am sure there are or there will be many details to work out. Secularization is neither a guarantor of evil or good, just as theocracies are neither a guarantor of evil or good (in theocracies, lately, evil seems to flourish, however). But what a secular government & accetance of non-believers will provide for SL is a basis for developing a common SL identity, a path out of the two major options – Tamil or Sinhala (two groups that have been at war with each other in SL for centuries). Also a secular gov, if functioning well, may be able to assist each indivdual go after their positive goals in SL, to move past the group based politics that are the norm there now .

In practice many Sinhalese may already be secular – or are only culturally Buddhist – do not deeply believe in the teachings, prohibitions, etc. However, when it comes to intergrating the Tamils & others into mainstream SL the government’s preference for Buddhism may be a significant stumbling block. Of course all depends on how people interpert things & proceed – it is possible to have a well intergated country even w/ an official religon – but, given the history of SL – how the Sinhalese & the Tamils have not been able to make things work in the past (largely due to the Sinhala Buddhist influence on the gov, in my opinion), having a secular government could help.

There is also another major obstacle to tackle – that is the Lankan’s belief in race theory. All humans world wide being the same type of animal, there is no significant or racial difference between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. In fact, if you took a so-called “Tamil” child at birth to a so-called “Sinhala” family & the child was raised under “Sinhala” customs, language, etc. – people will not be able to tell that the child was born to “Tamil” parents when the child grows up. Or, language & customs & religons are superficial things, under which everyone is just human. Of course race theory used the minor differences to divide & rule people. Just as religon is an ancient form of social control, so is the European concept of race that was introduced to SL during the British era. Race, just like religion, is fiction – actually, even more fictional than religon. A secular government or a secular movement in Sri Lanka could be useful in permanently dismantling race theory in SL.

As far as SL being taken over by a militant strong-man type, highly doubtful. We see how both the JVP & the LTTE failed to take over or alter the state via violent revolution. The Sri Lankans seem to prefer elected governments,& are willing to sacrifice to keep militants from coming to power – which is a very good thing.

- S

ordinary lankan said,

May 21, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

This is my last point – and I truly believe – the main point.

Tiruvalluvar said:
“It is easy for anyone to talk
But hard to act thereon”

It is doubly easy to talk when there is no question of action involved. And there is a great volume of this kind of talk in our discourse.

I would suggest – with respect – that believers should think THEY are the problem and work actively at becoming better believers.
Likewise agnostics should think they are the problem and work at becoming better agnostics.
This way our discussion will bear fruit some day. If not it will simply be a wasted effort.
When we stop learning at a deep personal level – when we hold on to our current knowledge as absolute truth – then we stop growing and we stagnate.

This is the first precept of the order of interbeing of Ven Thich Nhat Hanh – the LION’S ROAR – being always positive and open and having nothing to defend. This makes a person very fearless – this knowledge that you really have no ground to defend.

The Asokan symbol of 4 lions facing the four directions is a symbol of fearlessness in this sense. When you realize the truth of selflessness and live accordingly life choices are easy and the way of non violence is natural. It’s no big deal.

Arosha Bandara said,

May 21, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

Dear Wijayapala,

Thank you for your considered response. Some further observations / comments from me are provided below:

(1) On the point of the survival of Buddhism and the link to the constitution:
I think at some point you said the “angry buddhists” (meaning Buddhists who are willing do whatever is needed, including violent action, to protect Buddhism) were a significant reason why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka. The constitutional clause seems to legitimise this ‘angry Buddhist’ mentality since actions to ‘protect’ buddhism can be justified as being done to uphold the constitutionally stated pre-eminence of Buddhism.

Your point about legitimacy of a government being tied to this clause is well made, but is based on the assumption that the citizens of Sri Lanka (and you can’t limit this to Sinhala Buddhists) want Buddhism to be given higher status than other religions. However, a group of researchers did a study of people’s attitudes to a range of options considered by the APRC (see Sri Lanka Peace Poll) including the issue of religious equality and the status of Buddhism. The following is an excerpt from the above referenced report in relation to these two issues (from Page 14, Table 9)

Q: Constitutional reform should give equal status to all religious groups:
A: Essential or Desirable – 80%; Unacceptable – 5%

Q: Constitutional reform should give a special status to Buddhism
A: Essential or Desirable – 52%; Unacceptable – 10%

To me the above result suggests that the vast majority of people want all religions to be treated equally. I would also argue that the 52% who want Buddhism to have a special status are making such a judgement on faulty information. Specifically that they are being frightened into saying this by politicians and a section of the Buddhist clergy who have more interest in worldly power than spiritual development. In the maha-paranibbana sutta, the Buddha describes factors that will ensure the welfare of the Sangha, amongst which are that:

“The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they cultivate the seven factors of enlightenment, that is: mindfulness, investigation into phenomena, energy, bliss, tranquillity, concentration, and equanimity. So long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to welfare endure among the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline”

In other words, the protection of Buddhism depends on practicing the teachings, not through constitutional clauses.

(2) I don’t think it is correct to say that history shows that Buddhism in Sri Lanka merely declined in the past. The article I referenced earlier makes it clear that when Vijayabaahu I took the throne there weren’t even the required 5 monks to perform the ordination ceremony for new monks. To me this suggests the situation was more serious than simply a decline, rather given there were fewer than 5 people in the whole island who had detailed knowledge of the teachings and experience of its practice. The same thing happened prior to Vimala Dharmasuriya I and Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe. My point is that Buddhism in Sri Lanka should not be considered to be special – it doesn’t have an unbroken history in the country and it has been re-introduced several times from Burma and Thailand.

(3) Finally, on the point of cultures of superiority vs. insecurity: the two are closely linked, and it is probably better to say that insecurity has lead to the superiority complex. Whichever it is, I hope you will agree that the effect on Sri Lanka has been detrimental!

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.

Thank you.

BalangodaMan said,

May 21, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

To add to Arosha’s statement to Wijayapala,

“(2) I don’t think it is correct to say that history shows that Buddhism in Sri Lanka merely declined in the past.”

Wijayapala,

The point you are making is that there wasn’t ‘total wipe-out’ of Buddhism over the centuries. Of course that is correct – in that the ruins/evidence of our ancient Buddhist culture still lay in the jungles, intact though covered in muck.

The point we are making is, as far as the people who lived in SL were concerned for many centuries Buddhism did not exist in SL in any meaningful way for them – UNTIL its revival in the 1880s.

In our generation, we were taught that the HUGE extent of Buddhism we see around us (temples, monks in cities, Buddhist flags, political Buddhism, competition with other religions particularly Christianity, pirith, Poya days, Wesak, pirith chanting and sermons on TV etc – HUGE) ‘existed’ in Sri Lanka UNBROKEN since 300 BC. While this is a natural and easy sell to people of today … it is simply not true!

This is why it is difficult to imagine (today) that there ever was a time in SL when the people (of any ethnicity including the ‘Sinhala’ if ever there was such a distinct ethnic group prior to 1880s) did not care about Buddhism at all; that Buddhism was not foremost in their thoughts as something prominent going on in society as it is today. It is even harder to imagine that this spans some 800 years of our recorded history!

The bottom line is, the notion that ‘SL is a Buddhist country’ was invented by the Protestant Buddhist movement started by the Anagarika to spearhead the invention of the Sinhala-Buddhist brand and its promotion (following on from the arrival in 1885 of Olcott and Blavatsky who were looking to unveil the ‘World Teacher’ as a Second Coming).

So, ‘SL is a Buddhist country’ is a relatively recent political idea. Are we prepared to distort our history (from which many lessons can be learned) for present-day political reasons? (what would you think if the German nation denied the Holocaust as it would be an inconvenient truth in the modern age?)