Asathya Sri Longus Thuma This is just a flawed generalization, isn’t it Yapa Thumani? There are ‘great truths’, ‘better rulers’, ‘better cultures’, ‘better histories, ‘better religions’, and ‘better restaurants’! Isn’t it so?Asathya Sri Longus Thuma So, there ARE ‘barbarians’ and ‘civilized people’, ‘glorious leaders’ and ‘wicked despots’, ‘noble people’ and ‘backward savages’, ‘great religions’ and ‘primitive superstitions’, ‘adventurers and ‘invaders’ etc?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma That’s sad. What I want to show is, that nothing is equal; always there are better ones in quality. Now, Yapa Thumani, having said that, does it mean that quality always plays a role. I mean you don’t play Beethoven’s or Mozart’s music at a party; you play some low quality stuff. Why? In the same way, whatever the ‘truth’ you are talking about in Siddartha Gauthama’s teachings, it may not be as “user-friendly” as that ‘Magic Jew’s” religion. The magic jew has told that you can believe in his father and He’ll look after you; solve your problems; cure your sickness; pass your exam; and even win you a lottery! He has also told that this life is merely a temporary accommodation(like a stop-over at an airport) and your permanent life will be in heaven after this life-with his father! You can confess and be free of all your sins and also you can give all your troubles to ‘God’ and be mentally free.
Now, as far as the usefulness is concerned, can you tell that Magic Jew’s religion is inferior?
P Senarath Yapa In short, what you say is “ignorance could be bliss”, and it should be accepted in that event (on the basis of usefulness)?
[In reality shows who is better, “hondama tharuwa (best star)” or “janppriyama tharuwa (most popular star)”?]
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma In fact ignorance is a bliss, when it comes to such things, as long as it helps that person. For a pilot who is flying a plane it is immaterial whether he knows the universe is expanding or not; whether omega is 0 or 1!
Priyanjith Perera I beg your prdon for intervening in this philosophical dialogue between two well-known philosophers of our time. The problem I see when you brand one is better than the other is that it will give you the right to make the latter better. That was what British colonial masters thought when they tried to civilse their subjects in the colonies by introducing their relegion, language, customs etc. When you think relegion A is better than B you will automatically acquire the right to convert followers of B to A. It seems to be alright to categorize art into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ because it is accepted by all mankind that there is such distinction. (Please llow me to correct a ASLT’statement. Jews do not confess. Confession is only in Catholicism)Asathya Sri Longus Thuma You are welcome, Priyanjith Muni Thumani! First of all, I was talking about Christianity in common where confession is advocated as a means of repenting sin. As you know a Jewish reformer founded that religion.
You seem to have understood the complicated state of affairs in popular generalizations as the one above. They look OK and fair on the outside, but when you look deeply, the logic seems to fall apart.
Did you think, why it seems alright to categorize art, restaurants, airlines, cakes, etc and not some other things like religions? There seems to be no reason to say so, Muni Thumani. As you say the British, Spanish and the Portuguese did it, converted the natives to their religion(most of the time forcibly), because they thought that the natives’ religions were inferior to theirs. But we saw, that according to Hon.Yapa, this is the other way around. If you ask why, he may go into fine details of Buddhist philosophy and say that because of these and these, Buddhism is superior to other religions.
This is exactly the point the above illustration is trying to highlight.
Therefore I request Hon. Yapa to once again please be kind enough to elaborate your reasons to say that Siddhartha Gauthama’s teachings are superior to (say) Jesus’ teachings.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, the ‘popularity’ of something was not what I meant. I said ‘usefulness’ and it could be popular or unpopular.(Even if it is unpopular), if hanging on to a myth helps a person, it does some good to him. If a person believes that he is getting ‘eternal happiness’ and all his sins are forgiven, there is nothing wrong in believing so. After all, nobody is going to come back after death and tell you that their sins were not forgiven and there is no ‘eternal happiness’. He is not going to tell you that his ‘karma’ was following him and he was born as a worm as a result of it. So how do we know?Priyanjith Perera The logic does not fall apart as long as we are very clear about what we say. When we say a restaurant is better than the other we should tell the people in what aspect it is better. Is it the space, service, food etc? We have set criteria to say one is better than the other. For instance one restaurant is bigger than the other and it is objective evaluation. But when it comes to art it is not so straightforward. However, when somebody says Van Gogh’s ‘sun flowers’ is better than my ‘sun flower’ he has to put forward the criteria to say so and he would. Likewise, if somebody says Buddhism is better than, say, Islam he has to put forward the criteria he used to say so. However, we should remember that the aximatic truth Buddhist take for granted need not be so with the others. For instance, one would say Buddhism is a more ‘non-violent’ relgion than Islam. This is a fact. But the question is whether this fact is enough to say Buddhism is better than Islam. In whose eyes is it better? In the Buddhist eyes of course. This is because the Buddhists think that there is a universally accepted defintion of non-violence. Therefore, I would like Yapa to put forward his criteria on which he based his conclusion that Buddhism is better than other relegions.
An Ram Sorry to interject in your highly intellectual discussion. Conversion is not saying one religion is better than the other. Conversion depersonalises victim and severs the roots of the converted and controls his or her life. This is a wonderful ploy to pacify the conquered populations and neutralise any dissent. When Christianity was in it,s infancy Rome hijacked it to prolong the life of the failing Roman empire for another millennium or so. Religion is cultural, nothing more and nothing less. It is an instrument of control. And conversion creates a fifth column and sows the seeds of cultural invasion. In that sense it is no different to Macdonalds and Coke. Will you say Mac is better than KFC or Coke is better than Pepsi.? I prefer to cook at home.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Once, I told Sri Dayapala Thuma that it is very difficult to find what is better in comparable cultures. It’s like the normal distribution curve. Any judgement on the majority of it is purely subjective. But, it doesn’t mean that there are things that fall outside this mainstream. For example head-hunter’s cultures, stoning to death for apostasy, honour killings, and female genital mutilations of some religions can be cited. Aren’t these inferior practices in whatever the yard-stick you use to judge them?
P Senarath Yapa I think we should go to fundamentals rather than to details to resolve the issue of existence/non existence of differences.
I think as ASLT has said, in principle two things are different ‘unless they are congruent’.
In first principles, A=A and, A does not =B.
Can anybody conclude Islam=Christianity=Buddhism?
It is true that there are similarities among them, however, existence of similarities does not eliminate the existence of differences! In such a case not the similarities, but the differences dominate and make them dissimilar in total.
A single difference makes two things different despite the existence of thousand similarities in them.
I think truth should be regarded as truth disregarding the nature of its implications; whether they are beneficial or harmful (to humans).
Should the existence of a Tsunami be denied just because it is harmful to humans? Should religions be regarded as equal as somebody could interpret them for the benefit of their religions?
(Will the truth be different if it is differently harmful or beneficial to other animals other than the humans?)
If we go further than identifying differences among the religions and move forward to objectively analyze of them to have an hierarchy of merits, wouldn’t such a misuse be prevented? If we can and are prepared to undertake identify parameters to prepare hierarchies in almost everything, what is the wrong in analyzing religions to see their merits and demerits of them to keep them in a hierarchical sequence? Over a several billion people of the world would relieved of the burden of having mis-beliefs if that is done.If the endeavour of Science is to discover the truth eliminating untruth from it in physical world and if it is hailed even if there could be bad repercussions (for instance nuclear energy), why the endeavour of finding truth in religions are not hailed but objected?
At in my opinion, at least truth should not be denied, as it cannot be denied, if not for any other reason.
In principle I don’t see any reason as to why one should not go for a better belief system (if really they want) rather than keep on believing a religion which adores inferior belief system such as head hunting or so, as ASLT has mentioned.
People should move forward and appreciate improvements in their ideologies, at least we should accept this in principle. We should throw away the “hanamiti” and gradually go for “yakada miti”, ridee miti”, “run miti” and “diamond mities”, throwing away the “preceding mities”.
Priyanjith Perera Yapa’s comment is very interesting. He seems to say that there is only one ‘truth’ in the this world therefore, there is no harm telling people about it. The inference, I made from his writing is that this so called ‘truth’ is Buddhism. On the other hand, people who follows Abrahaminic relegions would say the truth is in the ‘Creator God’. How are we going to resolve this conflict? Does Yapa have any instrument, philosophical of ortherwise, to solve this and come to a concrete conclusion? We judge others using our ‘frame of reference’. We do not understand that others also have their ‘frames of reference’. According to a Jain ‘frame of reference’ as to the non-violence Buddhism is a relatively violent relgion as it is not so strict as Jainism about life.Priyanjith Perera Yapa also says that Buddhism is a better ‘belief’ system. We want to know the reasons? Basically all the relgions are based on ‘beleif sytstems’, which escape scientific verification. The ‘Nirvana’ and ‘God’ are both beyond our senses. The people, who say that they have personally experienced ‘God’ or ‘Nirvana’, will not be able to ‘prove’ to another person that they have done so. How can we say that ‘Nirvana’ is better than ‘GoD’?
Priyanjith, one of the most difficult things in the world is to guess what is in somebody else’ mind!
1. I do not believe that there is only one truth in this world.
2. I don’t say there aren’t any instances telling truth is harmful.
3. I am not talking about subjective beliefs of followers of any religion, and hence their judgments, but judgements based on an objective methodology.
4. Does Yapa have any instrument, philosophical of otherwise, to solve this and come to a concrete conclusion?
5. We judge others using our ‘frame of reference’
Not always, doesn’t science has a common frame of reference?
6. Yapa also says that Buddhism is a better ‘belief’ system.
YES!, objectively it is so.
7.Basically all the relgions are based on ‘beleif sytstems’, …..
Not always, and not everything in them at least.
8. …….which escape scientific verification.
Scientific verification fails most of the time in this regard, though it is effective in some cases. Scientific verification is possible on the things of the “phenomenal world”!
9. How can we say that ‘Nirvana’ is better than ‘GoD’?
Very simple.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, according to your No.(3), you need an objective methodology. But according to your (8), this cannot be science. Then what is it that made you believe that your (6) is correct?
Priyanjith Perera Yapa, what you have given us is a set of conclusions. As you very well know, before you prove something you need to give us reasons so that we can examine those reasons whether they are acceptable or not. I awaiting how you prove your conclusions given under 4, 6, 7 and 9. If scientific verification is good only for the things in ‘phenomenal world how are you going to verify the things in ‘noumenal’ world. I think these two terms were introduced first by Kant to solve the conflict between ‘rationalists’ and ’empiricists’. This is from Wickipedia “Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.”Priyanjith Perera Yapa, were you active in Groundsview discussion forum a few years ago? (I do not know whether you are still active as I havent been to it for last 3 years.) I am asking this because I engaged with a person named Yapa on similar topics many times. (BTW I used a pseudonym). In one, he promised me to prove Nirvana, Karma and Rebirth scientifically but did not!P Senarath Yapa If you think you offended me in GV and you think I am keeping a grudge over it, it is not so. I don’t keep grudges with anybody who engaged intellectually with me. Even with those who insulted me in debates I never take it beyond that point, however, I am not asking now to reveal your pseudonym, it is entirely a personal matter of yours.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Back to the topic, people! If it is not science, it should be philosophical arguments. So let us see those philosophical arguments that led you to your conclusion, Yapa. If they are convincing and stand the trial, we all should accept what you say!P Senarath Yapa ASLT, Yes I stand no. (3). WRT (8) , I have not eliminated the possibility of using scientific verification, if you read it carefully you will realise. So, I think now you understand that your question about no. (6) doesn’t arise.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma So, what are those scientific or philosophical methodologies you have used to arrive at your conclusion?(Though this may require some repetition of your arguments posed on previous occasions, we need to know them again.)
P Senarath Yapa Ok, I will start from where I stopped, and you will witness the methodologies used, I think it is unnecessary to deal them separately describing them.
In the last serious post of mine, I showed with fundamentals that Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are not equal. In the case of all the other religions are it is the same.
Now will consider about the hierarchy of them (in the context of truthfulness)
1. The probability of an disproven thing (as untrue) is zero.
2.The probability of something that cannot be disproven/has not been disproven is more than or equals to zero.
so, the probability of something that cannot be disproven/has not been disproven is more than or equals to zero.
However, if there is any evidence (at least one piece of evidence) to support something cannot be disproven/have not been disproven,
Then, definitely the probability of something cannot bet diproven/has not been disproven s more than the probability of a disproven thing (as untrue).
Above is the theoretical basis we need to prove what I said I would prove.
Now, will apply this theory to the religions we considered.
1. All Abraham religions including Islam and Christianity say their doctrines are revelations of omnipotent, omnipresent and all compassionate God who created the world. God is the center of their religions.
Existence of such a God can be easily disproven, hence his revelations, therefore such revelations cannot exist.
2. The doctrine of Buddhism has not been proven untrue with the use of Empiricism or Rationalism and some of its doctrines can be supported with evidence and keep on consistent within the doctrine and also with the accepted knowledge forms discovered through other knowledge gaining systems and compatible with their findings such as Classical Physics, Modern Physics, Modern Psychology and Modern Philosophy.
So, in the context of truth, Buddhism is superior to those religions>
N.B. : I think you know how to disprove the God in those religions, I have said it in many discussions.
P Senarath Yapa Ok, there are several methods, each method comprehensively and separately disproves the God (in those religion)
1. Infinite Regression
Argument for God’s existence: The world is so systematic, therefore it cannot come into existence all by itself, therefore, there should be somebody to to create such a complicated thing without whom which is impossible.
Debunking: If the complicated design< world, was created by the God, he (or his brain or whatever the entity used to design it) must be a more complicated design than His design and , therefore God cannot come into existence by Himself but there must be somebody to create him. Therefore there must be a predecessor Creator to the God.
In this line every creator God must have a predecessor creator and world is not the fist creation, and also Creation “ends up with a Infinite Regression, which is a logical fallacy.
2. Averroes Argument.
Think of an omnipotent entity (being or a God or whatever it is)
Can this omnipotent create a stone he cannot lift?
a). If he can create: he cannot lift it. So he is not omnipotent.
b). If he cannot create such a stone: again he is not omnipotent as he cannot do it.
So omnipotence is an impossibility.
So, there cannot exist an omnipotent God.
3. Epicurus Argument-1
God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
4. Epicurus Argument-2
The universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?
Further, God contradicts in thousands of cases with his other activities described in his so called revelations.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Now, Yapa, what if the beginning of ‘God’ cannot be known?(because you cannot simply see that far!) Just like the beginning of ‘samsara’ or the beginning of ‘consciousness'(vin~nana) cannot be known?
P Senarath Yapa Yes, when those arguments are kept aside for a moment as inactive, Yes! they can claim so.
Howevr, those who claim so should prove it.
Can they do it or otherwise what is the credibility level of that unproven and unsupported claim? Isn’t it zero?
However, when something is disproven once, it is disproven for ever. You don’t need to disprove each and every tit bit of it.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, Buddha has told (when asked about the beginning of ‘samsara’ and ‘vin~nana’) that it is unanswerable! Does that mean samsara and vin~nana are disproven?P Senarath Yapa No! It was unanswered. That is all.
Understand the difference between:
1. Claim that there exists a beginning to the world (creation by God)
2. Refusal to give an answer to a question which either do not have an answer or the answer can not be worked out.
Now, in God’s case he claimed he caused the beginning, which can be comprehensively disproven and you must understand that He can not be resurrected, with unproven claims or even with a sound argument if there is such arguments.
Disproven once, disproven forever, I must re-remind to you.
Can you disprove what the Buddha said about consciousness or universe by proving that they have a known beginning?
Was the Buddha’s claim contradicted or disputed the way it was done to the God’s claim that he created the world?
I think you understand the difference between disproof and doubting, giving the responsibility of it to the opposition and taking the benefit of it.
Disproof is a claim of the claimant who says he/she can do it and does so.
I claimed I can disprove God’s claim and disproved the same. If you claim Buddha can be disproven of his claim, it is your responsibility to keep up with your claim.
I haven’t come across any methodology so far to prove that universe has a limit or consciousness has a beginning.
Try and find one, you would be considered by the generation to come as the greatest individual ever come into being surpassing even Siddharha Gauthama and the Buddhists will invariably accept you as their next anticipating Buddha, Maithree.
Try and disprove it if possible. Then I will accept that Buddhism too is no more than a religion of the level of Islam or Christianity or Judaism. I have no problem doing so, and I vow to do so and to give up Buddhism as my religion and to embrace any religion named by you.
N.B. 1. No argument can resurrect anything that has been disproven.
2. Negatives cannot be proven. Undisputable negatives remain intact as not disproven.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Most of your response was irrelevant, Yapa Thumani!
P Senarath Yapa “Most of your response was irrelevant, Yapa Thumani!”
That has been the “andapalai” you always had when something is proven beyond doubt against your contention.
Above statement/claim is just arbitrary, authoritative and made against sound arguments
Just take points from my arguments and dispute them specifically just without giving grand conclusions.
“Some people believe that Goat/God created the universe. But they don’t say that ‘God’ was created. You make a basic error in assuming so!”
What is the basic error, point to it specifically.
“The beginning of that Goat..er sorry, ‘God’ is not answerable. ”
Why not? the present God was created before the creation of the world and after the creation of his predecessor as per logic based on their own premise: Intelligent Design.
Even if this was not answered God was disproven in many other ways, (Keep in mind once disproven, he is disproven for ever)
Do you have any idea against this?
“He was there..there..there..and ..there..you cannot see his beginning. Just like the beginning of ‘samsara’…..”
That is your contention and will. But the beginning of the present God logically should be between the so called creation and his predecessor.
Another interesting logical implication is if the predecessor God did not die after the present God was created, there were two Gods at the same time which disputes the “One God” concept of those religions, as per the Infinite Regression argument I mentioned. There could have been and could be even today thousands of such Gods if they are eternal and do not die as claimed by their texts and followers.
In that argument the number of Gods in the Abrahamic religions must be more than the gods in Hinduism, 330 million.
So there is a chronological sequence of the beginnings for all the (logically implied) Gods as per that logic; Infinite Regression.
Can you show that there is a beginning to “Samasara” or consciousness or a limit to the universe?
“This is the same thing, Yapa Thumani! Goat was didn’t have a beginning, and so was ‘samsara’!”
Just a claim and your wishful thinking against my sound arguments.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma If you have a problem of grasping things what can I do Yapa Thumani!
The believers of ‘God’ never say that their ‘God’ has a beginning. And the believers of ‘samsara’ don’t say that ‘samsara’ had a beginning. Understand?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, your first argument has failed to disprove Goat. Now you can try your second one.
P Senarath Yapa ” if you have a problem of grasping things what can I do Yapa Thumani!”
I don’t say you have a much of a problem of comprehension, but there is a difficulty to accept things against your contention.
“The believers of ‘God’ never say that their ‘God’ has a beginning”
Not only never say, they say He existed eternally, but, intelligent Design argument of theirs contradict and disproves the claim.
Therefore, according to their premise logically there should be a beginning to the God which contradicts their claim.
So, their claim is a logical fallacy.
Do you say “NO” with reasons?
Priyanjith Perera Yapa, this is the ‘cosmological argument’ put forward by Aquinas on the ‘first ause’. 1. Some things are caused.
2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
4. This cause, eveveryone calls God. This shows that your ‘infinite regress’ argument is not so conclusive. There are many arguments against and for the existence of God in the litrature. Nothing has been concretely proven as you claimed. The arguments you have listed in a previous post have their counter arguments. Therefore, there will not be end this debate whether the God exists or not. What we are concerend here, especially ASLT, is that whether the Buddhist concepts of Nirvana, Samasara, rebirth and Karma are similar to the God concept, which is provably unprovable.All these concepts are beyond logic and philosophical inquiry. How do you prove there is something called ‘samsara’ or ‘nirvana’ using any philosophical argument let alone scientific method? What you have so far done is to show us that there are arguments aginst the existence of God. When this fact is questioned by ASLT your answer was that these concepts (samsara, nirvana etc.) have not been disproved yet. Therefore we should accept them as ‘true’. This is lame argument. I think you have heard about the ‘tea pot orbiting around the Sun, Russell’s famous simile against the existence of God. Just because we cannot disporve that there is a Tea Pot orbiting around the Sun do we have to accept it as true?
Priyanjith Perera Yapa, I hope you accept evolution. If evolution is correct consciousness and samsara should have a begining. If not consciousness should have come here from other worlds. If the life was evolved from nothing in those ‘other worlds’ their consciousness should have come from some other world other than the worlds menioned above. This is another form of infinite regress isn’t it? How do you solve this problem?Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Your last two posts show the answer to this question, but the believers on both sides of the divide don’t take that as an answer. Because their founders have not told them about those! Now, what they do is, try to split hairs to prove that their founders have had similar knowledge!
P Senarath Yapa Regarding the first of your last three posts, Priyanjith.
You claim that all of my arguments listed 1-4 have counter arguments. You have cited one for the argument 1, Aquinas’ Argument to counter it. Until I answer it I accept it as a counter argument for that.
Do you have specific counter arguments against the other three? Please state specifically.
Please note that the formula I used to compare religions is ,
“the probability of something cannot bet diproven/has not been disproven is more than the probability of a disproven thing (as untrue).”
Please note that it is unnecessary to compare them, “proven” against “disproven” for the purpose of finding their superiority/inferiority.
Therefore, even if Buddhism is not proven true, it remains superior over disproven religions as Buddhism has not been disproven.
So, the proof of Samasara, rebirth, karma or nirvana as true, is not necessary, and would only make the things of the present discussion unnecessarily complicated.
We will discuss them in a separate forum, probably we might not be able to prove them, but it has no effect on the present discussion. However, If they could be proven true, it would help my stance, but inability to prove will not change the results of the formula.
You also say there are arguments for and against the existence of God. It must have been possible some arguments against the God were countered by some arguments for God, but can you specifically show counter arguments against 2-4 to dispute them?
(I will address the other two posts of yours above too as well.)
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Does/Did ‘samsara’ have a beginning?
P Senarath Yapa ASLT, Unnecessary/irrelevant questions can cause an argument more complicated if not jeopardize it. I think it is better if we stick to the specific arguments at present alone. Will discuss about the beginning of Samasara in another discussion, so that it would not be an obstacle to this discussion. Please be focused to this topic and and to it alone for the moment.
I think your endeavour is not to make me tired asking all sorts of questions at the same time, so that I will not be able to answer, due to break of my focus. We will be honest in this discussion, and will not use unaccepted methods to support our stances, but will make it a chance to arrive at a good conclusion whether it is favourable for or against either of us.
I also would like to request you to stick alone to the arguments and counter arguments alone and not to go to give your opinions on them as you did in the penultimate post of yours. We will remain debaters until it is finished and will not undertake the role of judges before we finish it.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma No..no..no..no, Yapa Thumani, this is the only question I asked you so far, in various forms: Did ‘samsara’ have a beginning?P Senarath Yapa I cannot come to that conclusion as well, on the facts/things I have heard about it. What I can surely say is for the time being is “I cannot answer it”. I surely cannot say whether somebody else be able to do so or not.P Senarath Yapa For that too I have no a reasonable answer. Most of the things seems to have a beginning and this fact doesn’t necessarily imply that everything should have a beginning, as per my understanding about logic.P Senarath Yapa It is not something I think, it is a logical conclusion arrived at based on a premise based for the existence of God. Even if I don’t think so, the argument is sound and valid and the conclusion is true, as per the principles of logic.Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Say for a moment, that the universe is ‘intelligently designed’ as some people claim. In that case why do you think its creator should have a beginning? Aren’t intelligent beings travellling along ‘samsara’ which has no beginning?P Senarath Yapa Because, if there should be a creator to create the intelligent design, there should be another creator to create a more intelligent design, that is that creator who created the intelligent design. if that creator was so created as logic points out, that particular creation is the beginning of him and hece it is logically implied that the God must have a beginning.
Rebirth is a belief especially exists among the people of the east which claims that life after death as a reality. Some schools that believe in rebirth say that “soul” transmigrates as it is into a different body after death and continues to exist as a different being with the same soul throughout the “samsara” (life cycles), cause of rebirth being the kammas/karmas (volitional action/intentional action or deeds) of the past lives. According to another school, Buddhism, there is no unchanging soul that migrates to another life, but as the effect of one of the kammas of a past lives, a new consciousness (a being) originates. Apart from this noteworthy difference in their opinions, both the schools fundamentally agree with the core concept of rebirth. However, there are many who do not believe this concept.
The toughest opposition to the idea comes from the “Lobby of Science” which says that there is no scientific proof so far provided by anybody and hence it cannot be taken as true. Some take the same reason to reject the idea totally as untrue.
Many who had some faith in rebirth conducted scientific experiments to scientifically establish the idea. This was mainly done by the scholars of the west who had scientific backgrounds as their discipline of education. Dr. Ian Stevenson is considered as the most prominent scholarly figure who took much pain int this endeavour. Even though some people are of the view that his experimental results are sufficient to consider the concept as true, many think that he was not able to prove it scientifically despite his mighty contribution in that direction.
Though my field of formal study was Science, I was not able to get rid of the idea of rebirth which I had inherited from my belief system, Buddhism. I know many people who originally belonged to belief systems with rebirth, refused anymore to believe the idea after their Science Education. But I was never convinced that principles in Science contradicted rebirth. My belief in rebirth continued as it is since I had no way to dispute it by Science or any other knowledge system though I didn’t have any reasonable means to prove it as well. However, I used to oppose moves to reject the idea without disputing it or without providing sufficient evidence against the concept, by engaging in many debates in social media. Really, in general I appeared against ‘”unwarranted rejections” done in the name of Science or any other philosophy, which I considered as wrong in terms of any yardstick. However, those debates made me to gather some good knowledge and different views about the concept of rebirth and to understand about many aspects of it. These debates and research done for the purpose further ignited my inner thoughts to find a way to verify its truth/untruth. However, about four years ago, in 2010, an accident came in my way to reward me with what I had been dreaming for.
I had an opportunity to work with one of my classmates in the same office after a several decades. He works as a Superintendent of Customs in the Sri Lanka Customs Department. He studied Science and Math for his A Levels and when I knew him before this meeting he totally used to be a non believer of super natural things.
We didn’t have much connection after we departed from the school and we had no knowledge about each others family members. So, when we met in the office, we talked about our past days and every topic of our present day lives. We talked about our wives and children (we had not seen each others wives or children) and also about the whereabouts of our olden day friends.
After a few days in the office he gave me a piece of paper and told me that my horoscope was written there.There was no way for him to access to my horoscope or to my date of birth and time of birth, but to my astonishment when I went home and checked what was written in that piece of paper it was found exactly tallying with my horoscope.
Following day I asked him how he did that and his answer was that while he was talking to me he had identified two of my prominent traits and on the basis of those traits he matched the relevant “rashis” or something like that in the horoscope and he prepared my horoscope accordingly. According to him the horoscope is the manifestation of past kammas of a person.
if you can derive my horoscope through my traits, that means my traits have a bearing on the horoscope. If horoscope is the manifestation of the past kammas of a person, that means my traits have a bearing on my past kammas. To have past kammas a person should have past life/lives. That proves Rebirth.
Later I came to know he had made many people go astonished by handing over their horoscopes after brief talks with them.
This person is still working with us in the Customs Department of Sri Lanka and anybody can meet him to know the truth of the story.
(You can see the original discussion by clicking “comments”/104 above)
P Senarath Yapa I don’t know how Seneca is wiser to know more than wise know.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma That’s an interesting question! Actually it occured to me before I shared this post! It’s a self-evident statement, isn’t it? He should be either wiser or he has some statistics!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma One of several such studies seem to provide statistical evidence:
New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith
First systematic analysis of its kind even proposes…
arstechnica.com|By Akshat Rathi
P Senarath Yapa I can clearly see that Eskimo is a wiser one.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I too!
P Senarath Yapa If this conversation really took place with an Eskimo, wisdom has no bearing on knowledge, in this case.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Perhaps, knowledge has no bearing on wisdom, in this case-I agree without any hesitation!
P Senarath Yapa Correction to my statement; “….wisdom has no or has little bearing on knowledge ……..” , it could be bearing is insignificant as well.
Its also evident that the particular knowledge of the priest has no or has little bearing on wisdom as you said.
So, the relationship between such knowledge (that priest had) and the wisdom is insignificant.
So, it may be true when Seneca said ” religion is false for wise”, however he/she was wrong when he/she said “religion is regarded as true by common people”, as Eskimo is a common man.
So, I don’t think anybody can believe Seneca is wise when stated that loaded statement.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Correct! But the Eskimo too probably had his own religion and no doubt he believed it! What the priest was telling him was “holy shit” to the Eskimo!(to me as well! hahaa!)
P Senarath Yapa But the religion of the Eskimo can not be an Abrahamic religion or a God based one. It should be something like Buddhism or something like tree worshiping, if he had one.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma They have a non-Abrahamic creationism, where the creator laid a cosmic egg!
P Senarath Yapa In that case, their religion is not Buddhism. It seems Asoka has failed to send mercenary to the North Pole.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Asoka didn’t know about them! There are no ‘records’ to say that even Buddha knew about North and South America!
P Senarath Yapa If there are no records, there is no way you can know. That doesn’t eliminate anything, you are just stopped at where you are in darkness unable to go beyond that. Anything you say further than that is principally you are unauthorized to say and invalid. No base for such yelling.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma You mean such “preaching”?
P Senarath Yapa Yes, you may call it preaching. Preaching based on just mysticism/faith!
P Senarath Yapa We have no way to come to the conclusion that Asoka or the Buddha didn’t know about it. There is no way for you to arrive at it. Don’t you think it is an arbitrary statement?
P Senarath Yapa Lack of evidence is no evidence of lack!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Are you ‘hurt’ by lack of evidence? Similarly, there is no evidence that people had developed the steam engine in ancient Greece! Are the Greeks ‘hurt’ by this statement?
P Senarath Yapa Dear friend Longus Thuma, I always get hurt by unsound arguments put forward to prove points. I am proud of being so. I try my best not to use invalid and unsound arguments. I didn’t say I have arguments to say that Asoka knew about the people of the North Pole, but you were confident that he did not know. Tell me how? That is only what you like to be, you have nothing to back what you like. Your liking is not a good reason something to be so. If it is so,Ravana must be a real king in Sri Lanka, as Prof. Gananatha Obeysekara is dying for him. In such a case anybody’s reasonable answer is “I don’t know” and it is neither positive nor negative. Here you don’t know whether Asoka knew about Eskimos or not. You know nothing beyond that. Agree?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Don’t get hurt by such trivialities, Hon.Yapa! I know why you are pursuing what I said about Asoka and not what I said about Buddha! Well, I was careless in that statement. It should have been, “There is no evidence to say that Asoka(no..no not Asoka Wijemanne!) knew about Eskimos”. The error is regretted!
There is no ‘record’ to say that Buddha knew about them as well(leave alone visiting them!!) As the Aztecs and Incas were warriors and rampantly practised human sacrifice etc., if Buddha visited them or preached to them and prevented any such acts, we would expect to find at least some folklore about such visits. That’s why I said that there is no evidence to say so. Similarly, we don’t have any evidence to say that King Dutugemunu used a Rolls Royce, though it’s possible!
We don’t know! Agreed!
P Senarath Yapa That is not a triviality Longus Thuma. Changing the places of 1 and 2 of the number 0.1000000000002 could be a triviality to a Montessori going child, but it is a serious act for a Mathematician.
To know whether Asoka knew about Eskimos or not you will need two special competencies which were claimed to be possessed by the Buddha (and may be some other people as well). 1. Para chitta vijanana gnanaya (competency to know the minds of others) 2. Pera visu kanda pilivela danna gnanaya (competency to see the past lives)
There is no any other way to know it.
But to ascertain whether King Dutugemunu used a Rolls Royce or not, there are enough methodologies. King Dutugemunu did not use a Rolls Roycefor sure, I assure you, there is no doubt about it, if you have any doubt give me a ring.
But you are not sure whether Asoka knew about Eskimos or not, as you have not yet acquired (I think so) the above mentioned two competencies.
I can see you repeating this mistake. I can remember you several times lauded the (loaded) statement of one of your friends: “Universe is merely a joke.” Really he or you don’t know it. Many people have a tenancy to make formulas, praise and believe “not known but seems to be mighty things”. That makes you intellectually weak.
My advice: Don’t take things for granted.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma If you don’t know something you can be happier, Yapa.
P Senarath Yapa I don’t know!
But there is a saying, ignorance is bliss!
May be you are experiencing that particular bliss
P Senarath Yapa Drawing conclusions even from correct data/information is a subtle task. Even a trained mind for the very purpose could fall into mental pitfalls in the process.
Please read the following story.
A scientist started an experiment about the behaviour of beetles. He put a beetle on the table and commanded it “GO!”, and the beetle started moving on the table. Then he caught the beetle and broke one of its legs, put it back on the table and shouted “GO”. The beetle started moving with its five legs. Man caught the beetle again, broke another leg, put it again on the table and shouted the command. The beetle crawled with four legs. The scientist repeated the experiment with three legs, then with two legs and found that the beetle moved when he said “GO!”. He broke another leg of the innocent creature, this time too it crawled on the table with difficulty with its remaining leg, when the scientist said “GO! “. Man broke the final leg of the beetle, put it back on the table and commanded “GO! “, however, unlike in the past this time the beetle didn’t move.
The scientist’s conclusion of the experiment found at the end of his research paper is reprinted for your perusal please.
“When all six legs are broken, a beetle cannot hear. “
Moral: Scientists too make mistakes even in interpreting true data , still some individuals think they can draw conclusions without any data, and confident they are true too.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I have heard this beetle story before! It underlines a basic ‘defect’ in evidence-based method! On the other hand, Yapa, we have achieved everything we achieved so far from medicine to astronomy, using this ‘defective’ method; not by sitting under trees!
Yapa Thumani, earlier you said: “competencies which were claimed to be possessed by the Buddha (and may be some other people as well). 1. Para chitta vijanana gnanaya (competency to know the minds of others) 2. Pera visu kanda pilivela danna gnanaya (competency to see the past lives) “
How do you know these are true?
P Senarath Yapa I don’t know!
But I know that if you don’t have them, you wouldn’t have known whether Asoka knew about Eskimos or not unless you believed in mystic knowledge gaining methods mentioned above.
I have shown you that I don’t use such methods by objecting to your conclusion.
Therefore, it is you who should answer your question as it was you who used those methods in drawing conclusions.
Do you still believe drawing conclusions without data with mystic methods? If not you have no one here to get the answer for your question. You may ask Seneca, as he/she seems to have beliefs in such methodologies, to formulate mighty statements otherwise can not know.
For me his/her statement is unwarranted. She/he seems to have spoken to the gall.ery. What is your opinion?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, here you say again: “But I know that if you don’t have them, you wouldn’t have known whether Asoka knew about Eskimos or….” Once again you repeat your earlier belief by saying, “But, I know that if you don’t have them you wouldn’t know…” I asked how did you Know that?
P Senarath Yapa Simple logic!
If you hadn’t believed those two mystic methods and hadn’t used them for knowing the thoughts of Asoka, you wouldn’t have known it. But you have shown that you knew it, hence invariably you had used them, you used them because you had faith on them (at least your inner-self, though your outer-self might not accept the fact publicly). (definitely that knowledge you gained neither through rationality nor through empiricism, in terms of rationality and empiricism your conclusion and Seneca’s brave statement are unwarranted.)
So, you had believed them but I have only cited them as “competencies claimed by the Buddha”, I accept the existence of such a claim, not the existence of them, as a person of reasoning (mainly).
However, though I don’t have reasons to believe them beyond reasonable doubts, on the basis of balance of probabilities, I have reasons to believe them.Only the degree of acceptability is less.
So, as the person who believed and used the two mystic methodologies to solve a problem, it is you who should explain why you believed (with your inner-self) them, whether they are true or not, how to verify it etc. etc.
I think now it should be clear to you.
1. Many among those who claim they do not believe in mysticism really believe in them (at least with their inner-self) and use them in their day to day basis (even without their knowledge)
2. There are people who do not say that they reject mysticism, may not use them.
Got my message. I never said they were true or not.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I can see the tangle you are in, and your effort to get out of it! A commendable effort!
Now you say that you don’t know whether such knowledge is real or not, but you merely accept the existence of that concept!
Yapa, many people may have many such concepts on countless ways of gaining such mystic knowledge. Some people believe when their “chosen one” climbed a mountain in the middle east, he was given all the knowledge by God!
And we don’t know which ones of these methods are true and which ones not! We need some kind of evidence, for this reason.
For example if YOU find out such a method, please let us know and demonstrate it to us!
If you can’t provide any evidence, all this becomes merely hollow talk!
P Senarath Yapa I know well that how my position is a tangle to you. I think that is because you use mystic methods other than rationalism and Empiricism to understand me while claiming you adore modern ways. I clearly showed it to you that claims are not always commensurate with actions.
If you want to understand my position, you will have to confine your learning methodologies mainly to those commonly accepted two methods. You will have to refrain from using unwarranted methodologies, you will have to be careful about your using them without your knowledge. You should stop jumping into hasty conclusions, as you have been doing and done in your last comment too.
Claiming that you don’t believe in mysticism won’t do, you will have to guard your mind going astray from those methods while you are in the knowing process (as I do, Ha! Ha!!).
You will have to meditate and guard your mind against going astray. That is the proper way to good understanding.
May triple gems bless you
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma All the best! Let me know when you reach there, Yapa(as King Bimbisara told young Siddartha!) Make sure you turn off your internet until then.
P Senarath Yapa I am going to do it through Internet.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Let this new tradition of Buddhism be known as “Interyana”! Saadu!
P Senarath Yapa My worry is you continue to rely on mysticism for knowledge in the pretext of modern methodologies. I think you don’t know what you are doing. Agree?
P Senarath Yapa Longus Thuma, I was serious when I said you will have to guard your mind against going astray. A problem inherited as humans in the logical process is that few can engage a couple of steps (logically) without making mistakes. Due to various reasons we deviate from that process and substitute some other thing to the process making the whole effort worthless ending up with an illogical conclusion. For this many things such as our conditioned beliefs, emotions, our special likings, our dislikes, our fascinations can influence and affect. Therefore, in a logical process, anybody should be mindful of such pitfalls for which one can be a prey and make his logical process too a prey, making his whole effort worthless by letting the final conclusion of the process invalid and incorrect. Therefore one should guard any logical process (thinking or telling or writing) from those biases to ensure the final product of the process is accurate.
That was what I meant, not any mysterious thing as you thought. I saw you were deviating and substituting with other things in your reasoning process in the discussion with me making you go astray reaching at unwarrented and improper conclusions. I wanted to point out it to you, I didn’t have any other intention Longus Thuma.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Thank you Hon. Yapa for your input! It’s true how weak our biological computer is, in reaching neutral conclusions, without being affected by our personal biases. I think I tried to call into question some of your statements using the same knife to dissect them. The outcome(if I was correct) shows that nothing stands supreme. In the end we start talking in defense. The best answer we can find is, “I don’t know!”. I have a high regard for His Holiness Dalai Lama, as he frequently uses this phrase, apart from his hearty laugh!
P Senarath Yapa That “beetle scientist” wouldn’t have drawn that stupid conclusion, if he had guarded his mind in the conclusion drawing process from the experimental data.
I think it is not a defect of the evidence based method as you thought, but it is an inherent defect of ordinary thinking process of the humans, which can be and should be corrected with mindful effort.
I think that is all, the Buddha advised us to do. I think that is the meditation the Buddha recommended to us, not that unintelligible mysticism our monks are used preach us.
Once a practicing monk complained to the Buddha that he cannot observe and keep on guarding thousands of wholesome things. You know the Buddha’s answer?
He advised to guard a single thing, instead of all. You know what? He advised the monk just to guard his mind!
You think the Buddha meant mysticism?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Up to that point, no! But if you claim to gain knowledge to read minds and ability to go through walls by this process, it can be considered as mysticism!
P Senarath Yapa I don’t know whether this process can be used to go through walls and read minds, but as I have shown I have worthwhile reasons to follow the process even if it doesn’t give me those mystic benefits. I have no intention to gain them, as it doesn’t go with my needs.
Don’t you think it is worthwhile to follow the process even without those mystic benefits?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Maybe! But, I’m not convinced. That’s why I tell you repeatedly to follow that path(Interyana) and let me know of the fruits! You are the guinea pig..!
P Senarath Yapa I have already achieved my main desired goal.
Are you saying that you are not convinced about the importance of keeping your knowledge gaining process to base on an accurate logical process?
Deviate a bit from your conditioned box and let your conscience to decide freely. Free your mind from old strings attached to it and let it be itself. Then it will reveal the truth imprisoned in your desires. Let that bird sing freely. Don’t tamper it to sing your desired songs. Then tell me about the song you listen to.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I’m sure you would like to achieve such abilities as well, no?(anybody would like to read minds and walk through walls!)
Please describe to me in detail what you have achieved so far.
P Senarath Yapa I am not included in that set of anybody.
The achievement is that process itself. That tool which gives me wisdom to choose truth from untruth and good from bad.
Isn’t that a great achievement?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma That means you don’t make any mistakes?(Are you infallible?) If you say you still make mistakes, that means you are still capable of making a mistake of thinking untruth as truth!
P Senarath Yapa Yes, I am infallible!
Oh! Sorry sorry, I made a mistake.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Rather looks like you are ‘inflatable’!
Kalhara Herath A really worth dialogue to follow. but some replies are too long .
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Those are not for busy people of today, who would only run through the headlines! Thank you for the input, Kalhara!
P Senarath Yapa Longus Thuma, you found me “unflattable?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Oh! That must be another mistake you made! Are you willing to put your new method of gaining knowledge, to test?
P Senarath Yapa We have been locking our horns now for long in the cyber space no, Longus Thuma, anybody who wants to test two of our methods can do it visiting our battle grounds no Longus Thuma. If you feel like testing it from the very beginning again, I have no hesitation. I will sharpen my horn. You too may rub your horn against a hard boulder.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma For example I can ask you to tell whether some statements I make are true or not. For example, statements regarding personal information etc. To minimize coincidence I can prepare a large number of questions. If you would like to do it on a private forum, I am ready for it.
P Senarath Yapa I didn’t get. Can you explain a bit more?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma As you say, you have gained a knowledge to say whether something is true or not. To test it, I can ask you questions to which there is only one true answer. If you have gained such knowledge, you should be able to know the true statements!
P Senarath Yapa You have got it wrong again, it seems.
You see, I would like to pose me as a student in a class, who can do Mathematical sums better than most of others. It doesn’t say that I will not make mistakes in solving mathematical sums. But it definitely say…See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma So doesn’t this method of gaining knowledge give you the ability to find truth from untruth?(as you claimed earlier) You may make few mistakes, but the overall validity of your answers can be assessed statistically! Agreed?
P Senarath Yapa Yes, but a Mathematical genius is not mandatorily supposed to know Geography better than a student studying Geography for his A/L’s.
I think you got what I say.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma How come? Does that ‘knowledge’ you possess have restrictions?
DevapriyaPerera Shyamalie Bopitiya who is the genius here
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Maybe you!
P Senarath Yapa Sure, those who are always fighting can not be geniuses.
P Senarath Yapa RE: your penultimate post, I should make some explanation.
Mathematics can be used in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Economics and Biology too to improve knowledge in those subject areas, but none of them can be built up by Mathematics alone. However, it does not make Mathematics worthless.
Kalhara Herath i repeat ; this is very interesting.
DevapriyaPerera Shyamalie Bopitiya very
P Senarath Yapa Thanks, our audience!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma In that case Yapa Thumani, if you need to study a subject to gain knowledge, that comes under the method we already know! You claimed to have gained an alternative method, didn’t you? You called this Buddha’s method didn’t you? In the Buddha’s method too do you need to learn these in that old fashioned way?
P Senarath Yapa See, what I have been telling you . If you were mindful as I said to you in the understanding process of what I have been telling you, you wouldn’t have asked this question, Longus Thuma.
Through out the discussion the method I have been emphasising was the “logical process” for gaining knowledge. In the discussion I have been using the terms, “logical reasoning” and “rationalism” to indicate the same thing, as done by the people who know about these things.
If you think back you would realise that what I was trying to tell you was that the logical reasonings process can hamper due to inherent deficiencies of the human thinking process, and it should be corrected to make better conclusions and hence better understanding. So being mindful about the logical thinking process and preventing the mistakes that could take place in the process, one can make the end product better. I also clearly told you that this is not a mystic method.
I also mentioned about two reliable methods of knowledge gaining, one being the above and the other being Empiricism.
Was I talking anything other than this to you Longus Thuma?
Which one do you think the alternative method from the two methods I was talking?
Are you sure you were mindful about what I have been telling you in the discussion? If you were so, respecting a bit to my advice, you wouldn’t have gone astray like this and posed the above questions to me. Your lack of mindfulness made you again going astray. Until you pay mindfulness to whatever you think or tell or do, you will be hampered with such wrong conclusions and misconceptions and mishaps. As you have said you will never be free from tangles of this nature.
If monkeys are mindful, they will never sit on their tails.
Practice your mindfulness meditation Longus Thuma.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma අහම්භන්තේ!
If you have said so, then it won’t be so exciting as gaining ‘magical’ knowledge! Still, I would like to know about it! Longus Thuma is open to any kind of hitherto unknown body of knowledge, as his dementia is worsening!
P Senarath Yapa Naughty Fifty!
P Senarath Yapa To be successful in the path, additionally you need to discipline (sila) your words (in the present context, writing too) and deeds and also you will have to develop your intellectual capacity (wisdom/pragna).
If you had developed your sila component, you wouldn’t have pronounced unwarranted statements you pronounced in the discussion and wouldn’t have lauded your friend’s statement about the universe. That was a result of your lack of sila as well. You could have gathered more wisdom too.
The Buddha said sila, samadhi and pragna are the three components of achieving the goal.
Develop your sila, samadhi and pragna, Longus Thuma. You will continously decrease going astray. You will unleash your mind!
Believe the words of this senior disciple of the same school (really the same university, Ha! Ha!!), Longus Thuma.
May triple gems bless you!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma කොහොමේ ඔහේ දන්නෙ?
P Senarath Yapa Follow what I said, then you also will know. Then you don’t need to ask that question.
Three things to practice are discipline, mindfulness and wisdom. Don’t you think that it would lead you to better understanding?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma හැබැයි ඔය බන මම අහල තියෙනව! දැන් ඔහේම කියනවනෙ ඔහේට ලොකු ලොකු දේවලුත් කරන්න බැරිලු ඕකෙන්. ඔය පොඩි පොඩි ප්රශ්න වලට උත්තර හොයා ගන්නෙව ඇරුනහම. නැතේ?
P Senarath Yapa How come it is “podi podi? The competency to consistently get over 90% for Mathematics in contrast to 10-15 % is a podi podi achievement? Then why can’t you maintain that accuracy level?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Not enough, Yapa! Not enough! You go ALLLL the way and tell me when you are capable of some extra-ordinary feat! I won’y buy that religious nonsense until then!
P Senarath Yapa Another unwarranted yelling born out of your bliss!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma No..no..no! Don’t tell like that, Yapa Thumani. If you have “unleashed your mind”, as you say, you won’t be typing on a computer in the first place! You will be travelling all over the universe, instead! නැතේ?
P Senarath Yapa Not necessarily so.
P Senarath Yapa Do you say, truth should not be accepted as truth, if it comes to you from a religion?
Tell me what is the assurance you have that a religion can not have any truth. …See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, Longus further says:
“Truth” should be accepted as truth, even if it comes from a religion. First we should know the frame of reference of that ‘truth’….See More
Raëlian beliefs and practices – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raëlian beliefs and practices are the concepts and…
P Senarath Yapa Ok, we will hold the bull by its horn. Will stop going round the bush.
According to you tell me is the following statement true or false?
“Mindfulness (as described by me in the discussion) used in reasoning process improves the understanding.”
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Answer:Possible!
Now tell me whether the following statement is true or false?
“The practice of Yoga improves the physical and mental health
P Senarath Yapa I asked whether the statement was “true” or “false”.
I think you have not gone through the question properly.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I don’t know!
P Senarath Yapa Really?
If it is so, you are invited to my Montessori class.
(Umba baba, you know how to find the way to come to Mihintale from India, you know how to find my name, but you don’t know the name of this tree? Umba baba! )
P Senarath Yapa Longus Thuma, I think you know very well that false/crafty denials won’t make things disappear into thin air.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma You tell me!
P Senarath Yapa No one else made false/crafty denials in this forum.
(Umba baba, not to understand that simple fact. )
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I wasn’t sure! That’s why I said, “Possible”! But, you were not happy with it! You have forgotten that some questions cannot be answered by “Yes” or “No”! -The outdated Newtonian model Ha haaaa!
P Senarath Yapa But not the question I asked. It has only those two alternatives, you know it very well.
(Umba baba, come I will carry you to montessori )
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma “It has only those two alternatives!” How did you know that? You felt like so?
P Senarath Yapa Tell me what are the other alternatives, if any, other than the given two.
Your understanding about this subject area seems to be very low….See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma One other answer is, “I don’t know”. That’s because I don’t have compelling evidence to say that “mindfullness” helps in the reasoning process! If you have such evidence, please come forward. On the other hand, there is documented evidence that Yoga helps in physical and mental well being!
P Senarath Yapa Baba, umba lokuwennema nadda?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Are you unable answer? (at this ripe old age?)
P Senarath Yapa Doctor Baby, you got to get some nutritious food and grow!
BTW doctor, you got medicine for intellectual dishonesty?
(Oka thamai api keewe,
Apith ekka baha keewe) Ha! Ha!!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Pinwatha, you seem to have lost your cool and all kinds of logical means to counter Longus Thuma and now resorted to childish means like name calling. This shows your immaturity has well as your low morality. These cannot be expected of a person who cl…See More
P Senarath Yapa
P Senarath Yapa See you in another battle ground.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma As I expected, you haven’t realized ANY damned “truth”, nor will you attain any such in the future as well-in my assessment! Pinwathuni, is there another term to describe this person?
(After this sermon of Sri Longus, the beings of ten thousand galaxies echoed with a soud ‘saadhu naada”!)
P Senarath Yapa See you, the crooked, in another battle ground.
P Senarath Yapa Shall I post this on my blog, so that beings of ten thousand galaxies can see it, if you don’t mind Longus Thuma? ♡
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Ahambhanthe! No problem, Yapa Thumani!
P Senarath Yapa Why not Longus Thuma? It is a bit harder than disproving the Creator God and Sathya Sri Sai Baba Thuma and a bit easier than eating peanuts. This person after declaring he became an arahanth, several people challenged his claim through news papers. This particular arahanth wrote several articles answering those who challenged him. I found several significant inconsistencies in those articles. I think an arahanth cannot have inconsistencies lead to contradictions, I think you agree with me?.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma O…K! But, on the other hand, an Arhanth is not supposed to possess “sarvan~na” or the omniscent knowledge, which is possessed by a Buddha only. Therefore an Arhanth CAN make mistakes and there can be inconsistencies as opposed to a Buddha. What do you say?
P Senarath Yapa I think an arahanth cannot make mistakes an average person like me can easily pick up. I have seen many people make much better consistent arguments. If an “enlightened arahanth” cannot make arguments better than an average person, what is that enlightenment for? If that is the level of enlightenment that can be achieved by an arahanth, I would never be an arahanth, and the sansara with full of suffering would be my choice. Can somebody be the same tom fool after he/she becomes enlightened?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma OK, Yapa! Yes, of course! You would rather get stuck in sansara, rather than attain that kind of arhanthhood! Ha haaa!On the same lines, could we question the “omniscent knowledge” that Buddha was supposed to have? For example there is this instance in Buddhist texts where Buddha visited Magadha kingdom and expressed his willingness to meet his friend and disciple, King Bimbisara. Then he gets to know that King Bimbisara had been killed by his son, Ajasath, and on learning this Buddha expresses that he didn’t know about this.If I say, “How can This man possess an omniscent knowledge when he didn’t know about this?” By definition an omniscent person should know EVERYTHING! Then I would go on: ” If that is the level of omniscent knowledge that can be achieved by a Buddha, I would never be a Buddha, and the sansara with full of suffering would be my choice. Can somebody be the same tom fool after he/she becomes enlightened?”What do you say, Yapa Thumani about this argument?
P Senarath Yapa In how many battle grounds we have fought wars Longus Thuma (in this sansara?)? I think we have fought over the same question somel time back, but I think you memory has faded away (is it due to the old age?). Anyway thanks for that story, I haven’t heard it before, however, the story is in consistent with Buddha’s omniscience. The Buddha’s omniscience was different from the omniscience claimed by Jain Mahaweera, at which Buddha used to mock. Mahaweera claimed that he is always omniscient, while walking, while eating even while sleeping. Then the Buddha asked how could the omniscient disciples of Mahaweera were bitten by the dogs while they were going from home to home begging alms and why they went to the houses where they didn’t get alms, if they knew it before. Buddha’s omniscience in contrast, exists only when he pays attention to something and he can know everything about it. (English term for this action I forgot). In this case if Buddha had not paid his attention to king Bimbisara and also no one told about his death to the Buddha, it is obviously possible for the Buddha to not to know the death of king Bimbisara. So, the Buddha’s omniscient does not affect by your story. BTW, Sri Longus Thuma, aren’t you omniscient, like Mhaweera or at least like the Buddha?
P Senarath Yapa Longus Thuma, the above seems as a mistake made by the Buddha when looking at its surface, but it cannot indisputably be attributed to a mistake. In one hand Buddha’s life stories are not Buddha’s discourses and were written by the people lived later. So the mistake in the story could be attributed to the mistakes of those authors. In another hand even if Buddha really refused it, we really don’t know his objective doing so. Buddha used noble strategies in many cases where the objective is not directly visible. For example in Kisagothami’s case the Buddha asked her to bring some mustard seeds from a house where no one had died. Prince Nanda’s case is another. Buddha showed him a female monkey first and then some fairies. Chullapanthaka thero’s story is another one. So, as I have said above you cannot attribute your story of refusing to ordain as indisputable evidence against the Buddha’s indisputability.. Further considering the accuracy in all across his doctrines and unavailability of directly attributed mistakes, still the Buddha is indisputable, even in this Quantum era. Contrary, he shining more with the modern findings in Quantum Physics and Modern Science. The Epistemological theories developed with modern science are very much compatible with Buddhism.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I’m not very impressed, Yapa Thumani! If we can pick and choose some things from Buddhist texts and say, “these are authentic”, and some other things that we don’t like, “these cannot be authentic”, where’s our credibility? You can raise this doubt about almost everything supposed to have been said by Buddha!(this applies to any other religious doctrine as well)We are ready to be dishonest when we don’t like the arguments! Ha ha haaa(listen to Longus Thuma’s belly laughter!!)
P Senarath Yapa Not at all!, Is your advice to ignore the arguments of the other side to come to conclusions? Is there anything wrong in my arguments or think whether you don’t like or you are worried about some valid arguments just because they do not go with yours? If you cannot show faults in my arguments your worry won’t be valid. Think back, is it faults in my arguments make you worry or the worry was a result of when things do not go in your way, the way you like it. Tell me your answer.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma What I said was you seem to find explanations as to why Buddha(in this instance) would have said so, and you seem to question the authenticity of the saying! What I ask is, in that case we can question the authenticity of the rest of the preaching as well! That’s not a difficult argument…
P Senarath Yapa You can question if there was no satisfactory answer to the question you asked, but do you think the answer is unambiguous, leading to your desired answer, that the Buddha made a mistake? It could be a mistake or some other cause. I showed you how the second option is more feasible with reasons, and why the first option is not the definite answer. Still you can doubt, but you have no reason to be certain that he made a mistake. And I provided facts and reasons against that contention. So, with what reasons anybody can be certain he made a mistake. Your question takes you to several destinations, not to your desired destination. If you board a flight, destinations of which are mentioned as London, New York, Delhi and Toronto and at the destination can you be assured that you are in Toronto? In here you are saying so, Sri Longus Thuma. Here you are assertive that the Buddha is in Toronto, not in London, New York or in Delhi.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, your interpretation could be or could not be true! This is not the only such explanation I have heard from the devotees when you question a well respected and a historical person! I have heard exactly the same argument from the believers, when I questioned the validity of other religious texts as well!(and sometimes the reaction was violent.. ha haa!)I see a man falling on the road and I think he fell! Somebody askes me, “couldn’t he have faked the fall?” I say, “yes! Pinwatha..it is possible” and I Laugh Out Loud!
P Senarath Yapa I think sticking to your logic rather than revealing your grievances would be beneficial to our dialogue. Revealing your grieving experiences would bring sympathy votes to you, but would not help an intellectual discourse. You created a doubt, but do you think you did disprove/debunk/refute/contradicted the indisputable nature of the Buddha by your doubt (the way the Buddha has done in the case of Mahaweera, I referred above)? I think you must understand the difference between a “doubt” and the four terms I mentioned above. Unlike the terms above a doubt is not distinctive and always associated with some probability. When the probability of the doubt is high, that doubt is a more credible doubt and vice versa. In your case I made the probability of your doubt very low by providing valid/facts and arguments against it. The other alternatives have a much higher probability and they are much credible than your doubt. So, with a doubt of a very low credibility are you saying you contradicted the Buddha’s position? You disproved the Buddha’s position? You debunked the Buddha’s position? You refuted the Buddha’s position? I accept that such claims are good enough for self satisfaction and but for nothing more than that. You should not be overjoyed with such simple achievements. If possible refute/disprove/debunk/contradict a discourse of the Buddha and be overjoyed yourself. I think ignorance is a cheap drug that makes many people happy and overjoy. Do you enjoy that pill Asathya Sri Longus Thuma?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I always enjoy the ignorance and blind faith of some people! Buddha seemed to have mocked at Mahaveera saying, “Couldn’t his(Mahaveera’s) omniscience foresee his disciples being bitten by dogs and killed by thieves?” If Arhanth Moggallana was battered to death by thieves, couldn’t omniscent Buddha foresee that?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I just did! According to the story, Moggallana tried to escape twice, by ‘teleporting’ out of a small crack in the cave he was living!(Btw, I wonder why he needed even that “small crack” to activate the ‘teleportation process! ) Why did he do that, if he knew it was his past bad karma?
P Senarath Yapa Now I think you accepted that the Buddha was not contradicted the way you thought. Now don’t try trial and error cases, think a lot and choose a credible case and come with it. I think if you think a bit more you will also realize that you have not contradicted anything in your last post too.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma You have not answered my point:According to the story, Moggallana tried to escape twice, by ‘teleporting’ out of a small crack in the cave he was living!(Btw, I wonder why he needed even that “small crack” to activate the ‘teleportation process! ) Why did he do that, if he knew it was his past bad karma?
P Senarath Yapa Why then they tried to run away when the dogs chased them? They should have accepted their karmas as they knew it, the way they accepted the other karmas like going to the houses which had no food for them. Why they accepted one form of karma and not another form?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Thank you Sri Yapa Thumani for engaging in this debate with ASLT! I am disengaging with you now, and asking my disciples to copy and paste this discourse under the title: “Asathya Sri Longus Thuma on Blind Faith” and underline it twice!Den saadhu kiyaapalla!
P Senarath Yapa They too must have faced the same dilemma of Moggallana! Realised late and allowed it to happen..!’…………………………………………..You must realize that they (Jain Arahanths) cannot realize later. They are always omniscient. …………. You are going for a (opposite) Infinite Regression. Every question of of your series has a valid answer.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma In response to your late reaction, I must say that you have a point there. Theerthakas cannot be bitten by dogs but Arhanths can be so, as omniscient Mahaveera would have prevented that, unless he didn’t do it for some other unknown reason. Longus Thuma lost this debate overall, except for casting some doubt on Buddha’s omniscience!
P Senarath Yapa I too accept this position of yours as true. A doubt in principle could be either correct or incorrect. So by creating just a doubt you don’t contradict something. On the other hand in principle lack of omniscience in some incidents does not contradict the Buddha as this fact has been already expressed by the Buddha. Only if he had claimed that his omniscience was all time, then pointing out of an incident of him without the omniscience would contradict him. There are many instances the Buddha displayed the instances where he was not in that state. One incident was the one you mentioned at the beginning about Bimbisara’s death. Buddha even did not know when Devadatta rolled a stone from the Gijjikoota rock to kill him. A piece of the stone hit the Buddha’s leg and he was injured. It is evident that in this case too he was unaware of what Devadatta was planning against him. No the Buddha or any disciple or a writer of the Buddha’s life stories wanted to hide this fact………………………….. Really I am defending Buddhism not because it was my inherited religion, but because it can be defended and as dependable should be defended. On the other hand when I learn more and more into the various subject areas I found that Buddhism is unique in terms of Epistemology. According to me there are only two non-deterministic worldviews in the world, they are only Modern Science and Buddhism. Uncertainty principle says you cannot find certainties. The base of the Buddhism too is that, that is impermanence, and according to “Pancha Niyama Dharma” the world is non deterministic. All the other worldviews including all the religions based on Creator God, and all the worldviews based on Newtonian Science and related disciplines have been eliminated from being true worldviews, as all of them are deterministic in nature. If you accept Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle you cannot accept any deterministic worldviews. So, the only probable worldviews now we have in hand are Buddhism and Modern Science. All others have been discarded and you have no chance to argue about worldviews using the bits and pieces taken from them. Classical Physics, Chemistry, Biology all those are non entities in the run for finding a true worldview. You can now confine your search for reality to those two worldviews. ie, Buddhism and Modern Science. Those who engage in other fields for finding reality would be like trying to milk from the horns of a cow. or trying to find the bunch of keys in the light under a lamp post, where the keys had been lost in a dark place somewhere else. Do you agree with me?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yes! Your analogue in the last sentence sums it all! I must have moved a few steps towards Buddha after this discussion, even though I’m still not fully convinced. There’s no way to prove his omniscience either. There are no clear-cut verifiable phenomena declared by him(which were unknown to people at that time) as well. For example as I mentioned with sarcasm in an earlier discussion on your website, if Buddha has told about the spherical shape of Earth or its orbiting the Sun, it would have been clear evidence of Buddha’s omniscience! The Buddha’s concepts on the non-deterministic nature using trilakshana(anitya, dukka, anathma) can rarely come from a highly intelligent person as well! What do you say?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma The following article gives details of such an experiment done by Physicist Andrew Cleland to observe “quantum superposition” of a large object, for the first time:http://www.nature.com/…/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma It shows that even a macroscopic object that is composed of about trillion atoms can exist in two states at the same time! Receiving and not receiving an impulse at the same time is equivalent to existing and not existing at the same time, isn’t it?
P Senarath Yapa As I have pointed out earlier, search for reality now can be confined to two knowledge systems (based on their worldviews) to Buddhism and to Modern Science all the other known knowledge systems are based on deterministic worldviews, as Uncertainty Principle has clearly eliminated the possibility of a deterministic reality. Now the issue is even though the other systems are incompetent in finding reality, it does not eliminate their abilities in many other fields/scopes and dimensions. For example the competency of Classical Physics in Engineering or the competency of Biology in Medical Science do not become invalid with the above conclusion. However, one should take into consideration is how small is the domain of (human) engineering and (human) medical science compared to the domain of reality. In Sinhala there is a saying “Kumbiyage muthra ootta gangavaki”, for humans the knowledge accumulated in Engineering and in medicine is like a river., That is because we are like ants in front of reality. However, now the question is whether the measures used to measure the “urine of that ant” can be used to measure that river as well. Surely, it is not impossible to measure some water drops in the river with that old measure, but surely measuring the river will not be a reality. So, you grievance is that you cannot verify some of the “phenomena” of Buddhism by the methodologies developed in those “deterministic worldview”, however, this fact does not tantamount to invalidation of that non-deterministic worldview. In an earlier discussion too I have mentioned that we will have to understand the differences in the terms reality, truth and knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not a good reason to refuse the existence of unknown realities. If that is the case Science or any other knowledge seeking exercises have no any role to play, and we will have to close down all the universities and research institutions. In general usage too this fact is accepted as saying “Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”. You cannot disprove anything citing lack of evidence or citing your inability to verify it. So, you did not eliminate anything even of the size of a hair of Buddhism but you cast a doubt based on the knowledge endowed to you by that “ant’s knowledge system. ……………Ok, now we will come back to the place where we have stopped. You say the experiment cited by you is an example with effect to the non-deterministic nature of matter. I think what has happened here is that confusion of similar concepts. Quantum Physics and also Philosophy are remote subjects from many people and the concepts in them are often misinterpreted by many and some concepts are interchangeably taken as replaceable but however, most of the time it is not the case. In Quantum Physics Uncertainty Principle is misinterpreted as “Observer Effect”. And I think Schrodinger’s Cat is taken as both the above principles. However, I think those three represent three different ideas and “deterministic and non deterministic worldviews” are an entirely different thing even does not belong to Quantum Physics but a subject area handled in Philosophy. It may be true that with the knowledge produced by Quantum Physics a light be shone on the nature of reality it might help to establish the non deterministic nature of reality, search for which started by philosophers long time ago. You know philosophy’s methodology for finding reality is not “experiments”. Experiments are not an essential component of an exercise for finding reality. It is only an integral part of Science, especially in Classical Science. Modern Science do not use much experiments rather than reasoning, though it often refers to “thought experiments”.. Thought experiments are really not experiments in the sense of the experiments of the classical science, but they are only rational stories, done only in intellectuals minds. However, I still of the view that the experiment you cited and even the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment are engaged with something else than the non-deterministic nature of reality. Can you substantiate your claim?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, even with such limitations, as you mention, a lot of such experiments have been done.Even with my poor mathematical knowledge, the following experiment shows a break-down of causality or cause and effect principle:http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele…/2013/01/130109105932.htmCause and effect is a major concept in the Buddhist doctrine. Can you explain to me how, the absence of causality in the quantum world brings Buddhism closer to quantum theory?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I don’t think so! Still there’s a debate going on the scale of application of the QM. Most people who know about QM honestly don’t seem to think that it applies to our everyday life. I don’t think even you would believe that your car has gone on a trip around the galaxy while all of you were sleeping, and re-appeared in the morning! Your example of ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ only exists in theory! Even I’m not sure whether the thought experiment called “Schrodinger’s cat” is an exaggeration! Think about a cat in a box with the same threat of an uncertain death. But, here you attach an ECG lead to the cat’s chest and connect it to an ECG monitor, all inside the box! You don’t see the recording it made, until you open the door. When you open the box, you’ll look at the ECG recording of the cat and you’ll know at what point the cat “actually” got shot! Doesn’t this contradict the result of a living and a dead cat right throughout?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma ASLT’s explanation of this puzzle: [This is just an idea, with so many parts still missing] Due to some unknown reason, the probability of finding an object in more than one state, decreases when its size increases. If you take an electron, the probability of finding it in more than one place is more, compared to, say, a pebble. In other words, an electron may be existing in all possible positions before you observe it and the chance of finding it in the point ‘A’ is very low. On the other hand as the size increases,(when it comes to the pebble) the chances of you not finding it at point ‘A’ is very small!If I go back to the earlier example, the chances of your car disappearing and existing on Planet Neptune after you close the garage door and reappearing when you open the door in the morning, must be very very slim. Maybe less than a trillionth%, yet, that probability too exists, however small it is. Maybe with increasing size of an object, some other ‘quality’ also increases, which makes it almost impossible for a large object to behave like an electron!
P Senarath Yapa Sorry that I couldn’t reply, I was away from home. Are we deviating from our main topic? Anyway, it is interesting and we have stepped into a very subtle area where even scientists are still startled. But we will talk a bit about these subtleties of QM with trying to give our explanations to them. Compared to modern Physicists we have the advantage of being ignorant and boldness inherited to set out foot where the fairies don’t dare to do. Who knows we might bang upon a better answer than those intelligent physicists. Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment designed to demonstrate the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. The interpretation (it is an interpretation!). The core of the Copenhagen Interpretation is ” It says that a quantum particle doesn’t exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It’s only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and that’s the state that we observe.” Schrodinger’s cat is in superposition of the two states of alive and dead until we observe it, opening the box it says. Your ECG monitor experiment give a clue to what I think about Schrodinger’s cat though I think it does not contradict what you w3anted to contradict, that the particular state was decided before we open (and observe) the box . It is true that true time the cat was shot can be decided looking at the ECG monitor, but as Schrodinger says you can know that only after you open and observe (the ECG monitor) though it happened earlier……. But here your example supports my position about Schrodinger’s Cat than Schrodinger’s interpretation of the experiment. I think Schrodinger was wrong here because he undertook to interpret some thing a philosopher should do and a scientist cannot do. A scientist is still a materialist (or at least Physicalist) who does not know to interpret anything beyond his domain of Materialism. Schrodinger interpreted the experiment which really goes beyond that domain and missed the chance of identifying the new horizon of of Modern Science, that is the “Non-material intervention” of the experiment.. I think the experiment cannot be fully interpreted and understood within the materialistic domain of science. When extending the horizon of Science to non-material reality (consciousness, mind) this experiment can be properly explained. Please see how I explain it using mind/consciousness, and see how your query of ECG monitor too is resolved. I think the two probabilistic states, alive or dead do not have anything to do with the cat, but that uncertainty prevails only in the mind of the observer. That uncertainty prevails only because we don’t know. When we know uncertainty goes away, that is a well known common sense nature of mind. When we don’t know how much rupees I have in my wallet, I have an uncertainty about the amount, but it doesn’t say my wallet has a possibility of all the amounts in the world until I see it, really it can have only the left over money after my wife invaded it last evening. Even though as per Copenhagen interpretation, my idea should be it can have one million rupees or five million rupees as probable, it is only an uncertainty of my mind not really it is so in my wallet, and for my wife she has no that uncertainty but she knows that it has only 125 rupees. Even if I observe it later it can only have 125 rupees and never will have one million or two million. So, the uncertainty is associated with my mind and not with my wallet. Your thought experiment too say s the same thing, It is true that the observers mind was uncertain whether the cat was dead or not until he open the box and observe, as you have cleverly guessed, there is no uncertainty of the time where the death occurred, but it is a case of uncertainty of the mind until it knows..That is the nature of mind, not that cat has a superposition. I think those shrewd Physicists were prevented from seeing the truth by their deep rooted “Micca Ditti” (wrong vision) that reality is only of physical. I think Copenhagen interpretation is a pathetic result of the perplexity of trying to understand a phenomenon/phenomena involving non- material complexities in addition to their aspiration, Physicalism. I think Neils Bohr so perplexed at the observations in QM to go blindly idealistic to give that interpretation. It was the uncertainty of mind of Neils Bohr (who did not know, and hence created the uncertainty in his mind) created this interpretation. Until he observe the truth, all the possible states exist in his MIND, and it created this puzzle of interpretation in his MIND. What do you think Asathya Sri Longus Thuma ? You think fairies are still afraid to set their feet where the fool is playing Somersault?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yes, you are bold Sri Yapa Thumani (who knows, I might declare you as the next Prophet! Ha haa!) I totally agree with you here. I enjoyed your example of ‘invasion of the wallet’! It is the ideal example to explain this!Now, the next question that comes to my mind is, “is it the same with sub-atomic particles as well?” Unlike in the case of Schrodinger’s cat, the uncertainty of the small objects(up to what limit, we don’t know!) is well established in numerous, replicable experiments! eg. the two slit experiment and its many variations. I think we have missed the bus, somewhere down the line, between a photon and a marble!On the other hand, Yapa Thumani, could it be possible for the fundamental particles to act in one way and the collections of them(aggregates) to act in a different way? We seem to lack some vital knowledge here, in my opinion!
P Senarath Yapa Ha! Ha!!, Even though you don’t believe that the Buddha was Omniscient, you seem to think that I am omniscient to bombard me with a hell of questions. Just like the Buddha, when deeply concentrated on something, in a very lesser degree I also begin to see things a bit clearly. I think I am also using the Buddha;s technique. OK, continuing my Tom-Foolery, out of bravery born from shear ignorance. …………………………. Now you ask about behaviour of sub-atomic particles referring to Double-slit Experiment. Unlike Schrodinger’s Cat and Copenhagen interpretation, Double-slit Experiment. is a real experiment, which was performed, and it doesn’t have any interpretations to be done, but that experiment leads us to that one and only conclusion that “light in this experiment behave as waves”. So, Wave-Particle Duality is a true nature of things. So, the ultimate conclusion that can be derived with the subsequent experiments was that things are of both wave and particle nature, and anything should be represented with a Wave Function. When the intensity of the wave function is low, it is more close towards a wave and when the intensity is high it is more closer to a particle. Here the intensity is represented by the mass (I think) and hence mass is less, it behaves like a wave and mass is high it behaves like a particle. It is natural then small particles(subatomic) to behave differently, than composite particles, as one should not expect the behaviour of wave should be similar to a behavior of a pebble. ………………I think the basic question is solved. But can you guess where and how the modern physicists got wrong? They interpreted and extended the result of Wave-Particle duality in a wrong way. Do you believe me?……………………….Wave _Particle Duality Very well concluded that something has a dual nature, but not of any dual nature. It proved the dual nature of “WAVES and PARTICLES”, not any other dual nature. Here in another way to express, WAVES and NO_WAVES duality. These two are opposites , true, however, the principle is valid for these two opposites only and not for all the opposites or any other opposites. It is true to say that Wave and particle states are in superposition and anything has the probability of those (all) possible states. But does the Wave-Particle Duality Experiment concludes all the opposite states like “alive” and “death” is a probability function like Waves and Particle? Can you say a living man has both the probability of “alive” and “dead”? What nonsense is that? When you don’t know that uncertainty is there, and otherwise certain, but in the case of Wave-Particle Duality I think that does not depend on our knowing of it. I think this (dualistic nature) is an objective reality. But I think Copenhagen interpretation and Schrodinger’s Cat are nothing other than ideas/concepts and a case of scientist going idealistic. They have fantasized, extended and generalized the result of the Wave-Particle Duality at their will to all their opposites and came to idealistic conclusions. Do you still think I am sane?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Prof. Brian Cox showed an example on a TV documentary on ‘Entropy’. A sand castle in the desert will soon be blown away by the wind back into a sand pile, if left alone. He says, there’s nothing in the laws of Physics, that prevents wind from building the sand castle again…! Yet, the chances of that happening is overwhelmingly small! The reason is, there are millions of ways of making a sand pile out of the sand castle, but, there is only one way of building the sand castle from the sand pile again ..! It’s not ‘impossible’ for it to happen, though. I started to think on these lines about the problem with bigger objects not behaving like quantum particles, and I guess that this is the answer!The sub-atomic particles have a higher entropy and the atoms and molecules have a lower entropy. The the reason that your wallet doesn’t behave like an electron could be that it has more ‘order’ than the electron, and somehow this prevents it from behaving like an electron!(and also your wife knows where to find it..!!)
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Because, I think they are more disordered than the aggregates of them! When the larger bodies form the entropy of the entire universe increases due to the inevitable loss of heat; but I think, the entropy of that system becomes less. The bigger they become, it is overwhelmingly difficult for them to act like quantum particles, although it is not impossible!
P Senarath Yapa Do you think when large bodies are formed, energy loss is an inevitable phenomenon? I think it is not mandatory in the cases of formation of bigger bodies by “physical reactions”. In chemical reactions, I think always there is a energy exchange. Can you describe your theory a little bit more?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma What I mean is, that a state in which the particles are moving randomly is a more disorderly state than a state where they are clumped together. The process of clumping together brings them to a higher energy level. On the other hand, at this point one can question, “In that case atoms and molecules should never have been formed in the universe?” I think, the answer to this is, “Yes, they formed complex structures making them more orderly but always with an energy loss as photons, thereby increasing the overall entropy of the universe.” Once a complex structure is formed there are many ways it can go back to the low energy state of random particles, hence the tendency is towards that increases.If I put it in another way, the conditions were right at a certain stage of our universe for the protons and electrons and neutrons to come together to form atoms. This is against the normal tendency of entropy. It’s like you building a structure with blocks. Then further complex structures were formed (like higher elements) inside stars. I see this as going against natural tendency of the universe towards more and more disorder(or towards decay) It could be due to chemical forces having an edge over the basic tendency for decay.(Well, I am not so certain now!) And then to maintain those structures, either you have to continuously maintain them (like living organisms) or once they are formed they start the process of decay(thereby increasing the overall entropy of the universe). See, the rocks were formed due to intense heat and pressure at one stage, but once they are on the surface of Earth, they start decaying! That’s the explanation I can give!
P Senarath Yapa The point I was trying to emphasize was that there are examples against the theory you were trying to establish. What you were trying to say was that the entropy of smaller bodes are higher than that of the larger ones.That is your argument is that “order and disorder” is the criterion for choosing the behaviour of bodies between the forms of wave and particle. But I argued that small bodies and the bigger bodies formed without chemical reactions can have the same entropy level, and in that case according to your theory they should behave the same way having the same degree of wave and particle nature, which contradicts the Wave Function in QM. Therefore, I think Wave-Particle duality or the dualistic nature of things cannot be explained in terms of Laws of Thermo Dynamics. You have an alternative idea?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma After going through your argument regarding Arhanth Moggallana, I found a ‘crack’ in your argument-not only in the cave! Ha haaa!If Arhanth Moggallana escaped through a crack the first time when the thieves attacked him, he definitely had used his “erdhi” faculties to do so. In order to use those special faculties, he should be in a fully focused state, shouldn’t he? In that case he should have known that it was inevitable then and there! Why did he try to escape twice then?
P Senarath Yapa I am contradicted if “focused condition” is an essential condition to have that special capability of “erdhi”. But I don’t see any reason to have such a relationship between them. I think it is an assumed condition of yours. I don’t see any obstacle to having erdhi capacity without having the focused condition.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma When Moggallana is walking on the road he is not using his “erdhi” faculty. When he wants to use it, he has to focus on it! If he is focused, the knowledge necessary for knowing the outcome of an event should also be there! If he didn’t, we have to conclude that he was not capable of this knowledge and he acted like any other ordinary mortal!
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Such wisdom dawns upon you with all the elements required to “see things as they are”(or Pragn~na)! It’s a matter of whether this state is active or not! If this state is active,(as you say) everything pertaining to that knowledge should make its presence.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma In that case, Yapa Thumani, an Arhanth flying on ‘erdhi’ can’t see the things to come; yet you are quick to find fault with the pure malt Arhanth Samanthabadra(the focus of our topic!) for making some ‘inconsistent’ statements! Even Pure Malt Samanthabadra couldn’t have seen those as ‘inconsistencies'(as seen by one Yapa!) eventhough his Arhanthood is in fact a genuine phenomenon! Ha ha haaa!
P Senarath Yapa It has been an obvious fact that mind can focus on only one thing at a time. With regard to Buddha and arahanths it has never been stated differently. So, you have not contradicted anything said wrt the Arahanth Moggallana. But inconsistencies in the articles of Samanthabadra, clearly contradicted him. Do you think a contradicted situation and non-contradicted situations are same?
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Sir, when he was concentrating on “sathara apaaya” he was not focusing on “Vidarshana”, hence the “inconsistencies”!Further to that: “An Arhath who loves single malt, is a pleasure to meet with;a pleasure to talk to, because he is in the path of right-mindedness”-Gauthama Budda(in Sutta Nipatha)
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Now, lets leave this joke and go on to the “mind element”! In one Zen story the conversation between two monks is as follows:
1st monk: The flag is waving!
2nd monk: No the wind is blowing!Their teacher hears this and says: No, your mind is waving!I too think, your idea of a ‘mind element’ in Quantum Mechanics solves the problem to a great deal!
P Senarath Yapa Really in that case it was neither the lack of causality nor the randomness. Really the causality is there. The problem is the difficulty of finding the relationships among the series of complex causes and effects that lead to the victory or defeat of the match. In here too all the effects can be attributed to the “Panch Niyama Dharmas”, but it is extremely difficult to identify them separately may be due to the frequency of the events take place, and also due to the intrinsic difficulty by an average person to find the cause and effect relationships. Further, the “chitta” factor can generate new causes which cannot be predicted on the basis of the effects taken place before. Really a good batsman or a good bowler or a clever captain can change the game on the basis of good strategies formulated on the basis of his “chitta” factor. That cannot be identified or predicted by any other average person, but only a person with “para chitta vijanana gnana” can know it. Even if one knows this, it is very difficult to analyze the very high number of complex causes take place at a time and also the intensive rate of change of them. Really this is not a case of lack of causality, but its opposite. It is a case of too much of causes and effects for any person. It is difficult to figure out the process due to the extreme complexity of the causes and effects involved in the process. If the causality is not there and it is decided on randomness a good captain or a ream of good players have no role to play in a team, instead you and I can replace Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardana and your wife and the son can replace Lasith Malinga and Mendis. Either you can form “another National Team” and you can be the captain of that random team. Please include me too at least in your cheering squad. Ha! Ha!!
P Senarath Yapa However, it seems there is a random factor too involved in deciding a cricket match, that is the “toss” of the match. Toss is a significant factor contributed to the decision of a match in many cases. This random factor seems to change the “Five Niyama Dhammas” pertaining to a match. Here this random event seems act as a “cause” for the other Niyamas. But who knows whether the random event, toss, is dependent on the luck of a team as many say. Further, what I say is nothing is pre-determined, especially in the events and processes involved with conscious beings.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, Thumani, I was about to tell you about the ‘toss’! The apparently random event of the toss seems to have a ripple effect on various cause and effect pathways right throughout the match. Btw, “Niyama Dhamma” doesn’t include ‘randomness’..(unfortun…See MoreA delayed choice quantum eraser, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment. The experiment was desig…
P Senarath Yapa You still have no good reasons to conclude that “Niyama Dhamma” doesn’t include ‘randomness’..(unfortunately)” . In a previous discussion with you too I told you that “randomness” could be a result of difficulty to figure out causes involved with the event which is considered as random, just as you interpreted the decision of a cricket match to randomness, due to the difficulty of figuring out the complex causes behind it…… A batch mate of mine says that he has proven that random numbers have a bias, and hence some of the Casino games (I have no idea of them) can be manipulated to somebody’s advantage…………… I don’t know much about “Quantum Eraser”, but can we arrive at the same conclusion under “Many World Interpretation”? If not, don’t you think it is a result of the interpretation, but not of the observation? Anyway, I will have to explore a little bit more and think twice before jumping into the well. Tell me your opinion about it.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I think randomness plays a key role in understanding universe. What you see as randomness could be actually the result of a subtle process of cause and effect. For example if you throw a dice up, why it landed on a particular number can’t be explained …See More
P Senarath YapaI think in the latter part of your comment you have wandered in a fantasy world created in the popular misunderstanding of the Quantum Mechanics by the laymen! Really I don’t think physicists believe in having enormous number of universes, but it is one of the explanations offered for many alternative states possible in some events (random?). For example, when a dice is thrown there are six outcomes that can occur, 1,2,3,4,5,6. But the occurrence of of any outcome is independent of each other, meaning occurrence of one number has no any effect on occurring the others, and even the occurrence of a number at a time has no any effect on its occurrence at the next time. If you take a coin we know that the probability of getting HEAD or TAILS when tossed is 1/2. But it doesn’t prevent the possibility of having HEADS five times at a stretch, because previous event has no effect on the events to come. (“Once again MS Dhoni won the toss – the 15th consecutive time he’s done it in completed matches -“) That is why we cannot bet on TAILS with more confidence after having 5 HEADS at a stretch, according to Mathematics. However, same Mathematics believe that when a coin is tossed 1000 times approximately 500 HEADS and 500 TAILS must be the outcome. In that case do you think 5 HEADS at a stretch has no hand in choosing the next 495 HEADS and 500 TAILS? Doesn’t this situation create a bias towards TAILS to be in line with the Theory of Probability, that is the probability of each outcome to be 1/2? Isn’t this itself a contradiction? Randomness allows events to occur independently, hence theoretically one outcome can occur repeatedly at any number of times without occurring the other, but eventually number of both occurrences have to be similar. Can this happen if the events are independent? OR Descartes” devil is intervening and manipulating the outcome?………………….Many World Interpretation has been taken many by as a true situation, but just an explanation given to explain those possible outcomes. The independence of the different possibilities is interpreted as a situation where there is no communication between those possibilities naming them as different worlds, but I think that doesn’t mean that there are such different worlds (universes)with physical realities as you think. I think all those modern physicists have become more idealistic, to create mind concepts and to pose them as realities, not as small ones but of the size of universes. Now their assumptions are of the size of the universes, billions of independent universes. I think scientists must be taught of Occam’s Razor. More the assumptions, the bigger the assumptions the theory is weaker. I don’t think many universe is a reality but a crazy theory created in the minds of perplexed scientists and you took it as a reality. I have seen such a situation in an explanation offered in Buddhism too literally taken as true and how people gone nonsensical (as you are, Ha! Ha!!). In Buddhism, there is an explanation to indicate that there is no a person called “I” or “me”. and people have taken that literally and say there is no a person called “I”. I tell them if I take a huge club and thump you on the back then you will cry “Please spare me” and will realize that there is a person called “I”. It is only looking at it from a philosophical perspective to explain the insignificance of ego, but our people ignore the correct perspective, ignore the udder to milk with the horns. I think your universes are not a wiser idea!!!………………….. By trying to interpret abstract things physically, you are trying to do impossibilities, I think that is the reason for these chaos among physicists. But Mathematicians have taken random outcomes with their true sense of abstractness and they are having an abstract laugh at physicists and still smiling.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, “Dark Flow” could be one such hint, of the existence of other universes! Unfortunately, these may not be proven in any of our life-times!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flowAs Buddha plunges into insignificance, an ancient Chinese man called Lao Tsu re-emerges from his grave and says, “Human mind can’t grasp the concept of ‘origin’; if somebody says so, that’s not the correct answer!”
P Senarath Yapa I think you have not written anything about what I had written in my last two posts, instead you have leveled an allegation against the Buddha, which is not commensurate with the arguments you have brought up so far. You say, “As Buddha plunges into insignificance…”, but you were not able even to come to the close proximity of that statement with your arguments in this debate. I think it is very unbecoming to express such a statement. Your conclusions should be natural outcomes of the arguments and facts brought forward in the debate. You are not supposed to come to conclusions on the basis of unstated facts and arguments, which might be amply available in books and libraries. Your conclusions should be a result of your arguments and facts and only a result of them and but of nothing.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I’ll give a detailed answer later! Buddha too have told that human mind cannot grasp the real truth!BTW, multi-verse is not an abstract concept as you think. Multiverse is the answer to many questions about what was before the Big Bang. The String T…See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, before I go back to the topic, one small advice: You can press the ‘shift’ and ‘function’ keys together on you keypad to write in paragraphs. That makes things more readable, isn’t it?What you say about randomness doesn’t have any basis…See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma It might be interesting to read this conversation I had with one of the great Prophets of modern time, some time back! I have described about random patterns in detail here. Although you might not agree with it, it would shed some new light at least on this topic!https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=591300987614823…
P Senarath Yapa Sorry for the delay to reply. After a few days break it seems that the spirit of discussion has faded away from me. Oh!, I must thank you, hereafter I will write in paragraphs. You know I am very poor at technology.I think I have to start from your comment of March 30 at 2:36pm. I never said that randomness doesn’t have any basis. I have no evidence or reasons for such a conclusion. What I meant was that if randomness is the case of occurrences that cannot be attributed to causes, among those occurrences there could be some occurrences which really have causes but which were not identified yet, as many occurrences have multiple and complex set of causes. In Science what we mainly do is a never ending endeavour of finding causes of the occurrences we observe in nature. To find some simple causes for some simple occurrences/phenomena of nature it took several generations for scientists. Still some people of the “civilized world” still believe that rain is an act of Gods and the God created the world. Even now people cannot figure out simple reasons behind simple phenomena. Do you think people can understand complex phenomena with their reasons? There is a tendency for uneducated people simply to attribute difficult phenomena to mysterious causes and educated people to randomness, you too attributed decisions in cricket to randomness. Are we taking things for granted?I know Mathematics attribute every outcome of a toss of a coin as a random event. I tried to build up a counter argument using the same consecutive outcomes of an unbiased coin. If a man cast his vote consecutively five times for a political party, do you not tend to think that he is politically biased towards that particular party? Then why you do not tend to think it is not so in the case of a toss of a coin? And after that out of next 95 outcomes, there is a tendency it it be 45 and 50 outcomes for and against that outcome? Give up your way of thinking taught by Mathematics, and think in terms of real occurrences afresh.Now, your ideas of “patterns of randomness” I would like to call as “biased patterns in randomness”, don’t you think that mine would be more appropriate? Yes, I think this situation could be the reason for many perplexities we have, but I think the reason could be misunderstanding “biases” as “randomness”, or taking situations with non random events as random events or “patterns of randomness”. Why don’t we call a spade a spade?Now you say thoughts occur randomly! Are you sure of this? I think I tend to take the opposite view. If not always, almost always thoughts occur due to reasons. Do you disagree?It also seems that you have fascinated even to go further to attribute the universe to randomness totally forgetting the theories of cause and effect about the universe. Do you think the theories of randomness are more credible than the theories of cause and effect on the universe?Your conversation with one of your prophets, I couldn’t read, that is not available where you have cited. I would like to read it just like I would like to read your next response to my present comment.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Two short answers, before I send you a more analytical reply:
The “great patterns” of randomness I mentioned doesn’t require a “great manipulator” of super-natural. If you just say, there is a bias in a series of a particular out-come(eg.heads), the q…See More
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Getting back to your reply on randomness, I think even thoughts occur randomly. There is a sensory stimulus most of the time from our five senses. And sometimes this stimulus is from the stored memory. Basically a thought is an electrical impulse in aneuron.For example when you wake up in the morning the first thought that occurs to you(if you were not woken up while dreaming) could be a sound from the environment: “බල්ලෙක් බුරනවා!” Then a train of thoughts would follow as to who the dog is etc! “මොකද ඌ බුරන්නෙ?” Also, sometimes, random thoughts may occur as well without any stimulus eg: a thought like, “dogs are pigs in disguise!” “Consciousness is an illusion!”
Some of them occasionally could be really great thoughts as well (like the thought about pigs…!) Ha ha haaa!
P Senarath Yapa met a classmate of this Samanthabadra. He told me that the chap was in the village temple from his very young age and that guy told me the boy was a very clever fellow and read all the books available at the temple in his young age. He told me a thing that lay Samanthabadra had told him when they were together. He had told that “there were only two methods by which one can progress”, that is 1. politics 2. being a monk.After getting free education with the living expenses from the temple, Just after his university education he followed the suit (to progress).I met Samanthabadra himself once, I also felt that he cannot be sane after exchanging a few words with him.
Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Actually, I wasn’t sarcastic when I wrote the comment for the video! After watching his video, I was actually impressed. The way he touched upon some of the more abstract concepts of Buddhism(for example, “beyond the existence/non-existence”) with simplicity is impressive.I couldn’t find fault with the content of this sermon !At the time of this sermon, he has not proclaimed that he was an ‘Arhanth'(an enlightened person) Maybe he wasn’t at that time!But, then again, this kind of an experience like “sudden awakening”, can be an illusionary mental status as well. If this is the case, I have no way of knowing whether all those people who were reported to have had similar experiences in the Buddhist history were having illusions or not!
The astonishing beauty I experienced through out the Southern Expressway made a permanent imprint in my heart. I tried to take out a copy of it. But to me it is a very poor copy. Please enjoy that poor copy of the beauty.
Your feed backs are very much appreciated.
As its name implies, Science is a body of knowledge gained through the Scientific Method. However, the body of knowledge known as Science today consists of a collection of knowledge gained through both Scientific Method and Logical Reasoning.
Scientific Method is based on Observations and hence the knowledge gained through this technique limits itself to the observable (by human senses) universe. However, Logical Reasoning has no such a limitation and therefore can even be used to produce knowledge even on things that have no physical existences. Despite this fact, the role of Logical Reasoning in Science is to act within the limits of the domain of the Scientific method as a supplementary tool to investigate the observable phenomena of the universe. It acts upon premises gained through observations to produce further knowledge for Science through valid arguments.
If some idea is tested and reproduced through Scientific Method or through a mixture of these two methodologies, such an idea is known as Scientific and taken as scientifically true.
However, Pure Reasoning has no role in Science. If pure reasoning had a role in Science, Mathematics would have become a Science. It is not a science, because though logical reasoning is used in it, Mathematics essentially has no physical existence or “observations” in Mathematics (if one would like to still call them “observations”) are not observations of the five senses. (They are “observations” of the sixth sense, mind?) So, the body of knowledge of Mathematics is not scientific.
But can somebody say that Mathematical knowledge is not true?
Despite the fact that it is not scientific, Mathematics still remains unchallenged as true.
So, being Scientific/scientifically true is not a Necessary Condition for something to be true.
Conversely, are all the “Scientific truths” true?
This is something which can be resolved without giving much pain to our brain muscles. We all know how “scientific truths” keep on changing (“upgrading”) overtime.
So, being scientific/scientifically true is not a Sufficient Condition for something to be true.
So in essence, we can conclude that being scientific is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for something to be true.