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…/
New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith
First systematic analysis of its kind even proposes…|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( 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 Thu
ma 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! 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!


The Model for the universe seems to be the ultimate goal to be achieved by any ideology striving for knowledge. There is enough evidence to the fact that from the inception of the known history of the humankind, attempts have been made to achieve this ultimate goal of knowledge.

Earliest idea in this regard is to attribute the universe to a creation by a god or by several gods. This idea has no any credibility because if god(s) can exist  without any cause before the creation, there is no reason as to why the universe too cannot  exist without any cause, that is prior to a creation by somebody.

Early Greek philosophers attributed the universe as constitute of some fundamental elements (building blocks). Thales said the universe was made up of water, according to him the fundamental element was water. Another philosopher believed that the fundamental element of the universe as fire.  Later a multi-element approach came up in Greece which attributed the composition of the universe to the four elements, Earth, Fire, Water and Air. However, it is evident that Greeks did not satisfy with this non-living model of elements of the universe and they believed that something was missing in these models to derive some observable properties of the universe. They though that some non-material element too is necessary to fill the gaps in the material models and they considered this non-material fundamental element of the universe as soul. So, their final model of the universe consisted of both material and non-material elements.

In the east; in India many ideologies have come up in regard to the universe. As in Greece, in India a similar four element model have cropped up. In that model elements were patavi, apo, thejo and vayo which seem to be more or less equivalent to the Greek model. In India too there were discussions about the inclusion of a non-material element(s).

In the case of the ideology came up as Science, the main focus was to find a “material model” for the universe, however, one can see that it too has not forgotten the non-material component borrowed from the Greeks. Science did not give up learning Biology and Psychology parallel to the other branches of Science which strived hard to find a model for the universe, though separately. However, the formal models provided by Science did not and does not include that non-material component and still trying to develop a sustainable model for the universe.

The Newtonian model of the Universe believed that all the properties of the universe can be derived from a model which is a combination of space, time, matter, energy and forces. It believed that these fundamental building blocks of the universe as “absolute”. However, with the introduction of the “Theory of Relativity” in the 20th century, several centuries old Newtonian model collapsed as invalid. Relativity showed that these fundamental elements were “not absolute” as thought before.

The model most recognized by Science after the collapse of the Newtonian model came up in “Big Bang Theory”. It recognizes different material elements including the elements mentioned in the Periodic Table. It recognizes the existence of space, time, waves and matter until a certain point in the past. It is the beginning of the universe and there was nothing before that particular event known as Big Bang. However, this model is faced with many challenges to its sustenance and with each challenge it has to assume more and more axioms for its survival. It had to assume the existence of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, strings etc. etc., but science has no any clue for their existence. However, Science keeps up “developing” its model by assuming more and more things, disregarding what is said in Occam’s Razer. On the other hand it assumes that “universe has a beginning” as one of its fundamental axioms. There seems no any justifiable reason to assume such a mammoth axiom as one of the bases of any ideology which aims at solving a gigantic mystery. I think the modern day model of Science of the universe is nothing more than a ball of entangled threads.

In such a backdrop, it is unwise if somebody does not look up for probable alternative models for the universe. I think the “Buddhist Model of the Universe” is one of such probable models which deserves such attention.

There is no such a model named as a Buddhist model specifically mentioned in Buddhist doctrines, the reason may be because the objective of Buddhism is not that end. However, in the path of achieving its end, Buddhism happens to mention about the the universe in various discourses. If somebody picks up them and puts them together in a proper manner, one can see a probable  Buddhist model for the universe. This task should be undertake by a person who has some understanding of the Buddhist doctrine and also some ability to understand the fundamentals of the other models presented. My intervention in here confines to that task alone and all the honours in this regard should go to Buddhism and to Buddhism alone.  However, I admit that there could be some lapses in the model I compile due to my personal  incompetencies. I think readers will bear with it.

The Buddhist model of universe is a composition of both material and non-material building blocks (elements), known as “rupa” and “nama” in Buddhist terminology. All “rupa” and “nama” are contained in “space“. The fundamental nature of the universe is “change” (anichcha). This change takes place in accordance with the Law of Cause and Effect. This is the Buddhist model of the universe in brief and every phenomenon in the universe can be  derived and explained from this model.

Now I will describe the basic components of the model.

1. Rupa

Rupa represents all physical things in the universe. Rupa are “crude” in form (olarika) and all the  Rupas found in the universe are made out of one or more of the four fundamental elements (dhatu), namely  patavi, apo, thejo and vayo. Really these four elements are not matter, but some properties give rise to rupas.

2. Nama

Namas are “subtle” (siyum) elements. These are non-physical elements. There are fundamentally four namas namely, vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankara (recognition/reaction) and vinnana (consciousness/mind/memory).

Note :- Non living things, flora and fauna

When something is consisted only of rupa elements then it is a “non-living thing”. When something is consisted of rupa elements and first three of the nama elements, they are flora or plants. When the fourth element of nama is combined with rupa elements and three other nama elements its a being (sathva).

Further, while all the entities in the universe are contained in the space, space too combines with with other fundamental elements to form “composite entities” (sankara) in the universe. Therefore, “space” is also considered as a “passive element”

3. Change

Change in Buddhism can be defined in Buddha’s phrase “Sabbe sankhara anichchathi”, which means all the “sakaras” are subject to change. Here the “sankara” means the “composite entities”which are  made out of fundamental elements.

Note :- It should be noted that according to Buddhism only composite things are subject to change,  not the fundamental elements. Composite things can be decomposed into its composite elements and these elements can combine again to form some other entities. These changes take place due to causes (hethu) and conditions (prathya). “Hethu” is the main cause of a phenomenon and prathyas are the inferior causes that give rise to the effect.

It should be also noted that “time” is not a fundamental element of the universe in the Buddhist model  as in the case of the western models. In “Milinda Prashnaya” time is mentioned as a “pragnapthi” (something taken by convention). Really no one has ever detected or really experienced “time” rather than taking it as granted as per the long deep rooted belief.

Really the definition of “time” denies the existence of such  a fundamental element in the universe. Time is defined in terms of “events” and therefore “time” depends on events. In a scenario where events are non existent, time should also be non existent. Hence time originates subsequent to events according to the definition and hence is not a fundamental element of the universe.  Further, events take place due to change and hence time is a “derivative” of the fundamental nature of the universe,  that is of change.

In my opinion all the things and phenomena of the universe can be explained in terms of the above model.


(Open to discussion)

As I said in my last post logical/rational knowledge is developed on Formal Logic, which is based on  Aristotle’s three postulates. Hence the knowledge generated through formal logic is true, only if its postulates are true. If any of its postulates is found to be untrue in an instance, the knowledge generated at that instance through formal logic becomes untrue and incorrect. Can I find such an instance to claim that rational knowledge is not essentially correct contrary to the popular notion?

As we have mentioned before the postulates are:

  • Law of Identity
  • Law of non-contradiction
  • Law of Excluded middle

Now we will discuss these postulates in a bit details.

1. Law of Identity

This means anything has a unique identity. In mathematical form this can be denoted as

A=A and A B

This means something is equal to itself but not to anything else.

2. Law of Excluded middle

This means anything can have only two (end) choices but none in between them.

In Mathematical notation the two choices are:

Either (1). A

or       (2). ˆA      ; where ˆA means (not A)

For example cows are  only (1). Black   or (2). not Black, there cannot be cows that do not belong to these two categories.

Can you find a cow that is neither black nor (not black)? Think of this a bit carefully. You will understand that there is no middle (option) other than these two ends, which means the middle is excluded as a choice.

3. Law of non-contradiction

The Law says that in formal logic a contradiction cannot arise, here the contradiction means the existence of both A and (not A) together.

That is existence of  (1). A   and   (2).ˆA  together becomes a contradiction.

Hence in formal logic A and ˆA never exist together.

To summarize the three postulates with an example,

There cannot have a cow both be black and not black.

Such knowledge cannot exist in knowledge systems generated through formal logic. If such a situation is found in a knowledge system in formal logic, it is considered as a contradiction and such “knowledge” is known as fallacious and hence wrong. So, such “knowledge” is not knowledge in knowledge systems generated from formal logic. Hence such knowledge is non-existence in “rational knowledge”. That is formal logic primarily is of the view that no knowledge exists  outside of this system, hence only knowledge that exists is rational knowledge. (This school does not believe that five senses can generate true knowledge).

However, the phenomenon in Modern Science called Wave Particle Duality proved that there are choices in reality (really in material reality) which violate all the three postulates of formal logic.

That is

1. There isn’t necessarily a unique identity to something.

2. There can be choices other than the two choices (of the ends)

3. Existing A and ˆA together is possible and isn’t necessarily a contradiction.

According to the findings of Modern Science such things exist in reality which proves the existence of knowledge that is not in accordance with rationality.

In our next post we will discuss what Wave Particle Duality is, and consider how it contradicts Aristotle’s postulates and how it proves the existence of knowledge that is not available in rational knowledge.

Think of a worm who was born in a bitter gourd and living his whole life inside that gourd. It is obvious that the only food it can have is nothing but the the bitter gourd itself. It is rational to think that it takes its food voluntarily and willingly without any persuasion. No one would eat “bitter food” for his whole life willingly unless eating any other food is allergic/fatal to him or  his taste buds do not sense “bitterness”. Even a person  allergic to all the other foods will never eat bitter food with eagerness. However, we know that worms in bitter gourds eat them greedily indicating  that it is “tasty food” for them. Now the question in our topic of this article becomes relevant to this scenario:Can a worm in a bitter gourd prove that bitter gourd is bitter?

Unless any other being lives on other foods convinces the worm that there are different  tastes, it will never know that bitter gourd is “bitter” by its own, in spite of all its efforts inside his whole “universe”: the bitter gourd. This worm develops its knowledge system of taste on the basis of the axiom(assumption) that  “bitter gourd is tasty” and hence it will never know this “obvious fact” , keep aside expecting him to disprove  Gödel’s theorem. (Ha! Ha!!)

Most probably Gödel’s theorem is the most important principle ever found in the study of knowledge or Epistemology. It is the principle that teaches us the limitations or relativistic nature of (logical) knowledge systems developed on sets of various axioms. It is the principle that teaches us that we cannot develop “absolute logical knowledge systems”. It gives us the message that  no rational knowledge system can generate absolute knowledge . It tells us that  rational knowledge is “system specific” and can be assured only to be true within that knowledge system or with relative to the axioms of that knowledge system. Such knowledge is deduced on its axioms and hence is true, given that the axioms of the particular knowledge system is true. In other words, Gödel’s theorem  tells us that truthfulness of knowledge generated in a logical knowledge system is dependent on its axioms, hence knowledge in such a system is incapable of  telling anything about the truthfulness of its axioms. in short what Gödel’s theorem says is “a knowledge system deduced from a set of axioms cannot  prove its axioms true” (just the way a worm in a bitter gourd cannot prove that bitter gourd is bitter.).

Now think of the set of axioms(postulates) of the knowledge systems generated through formal logic conceptualized by Aristotle. As mentioned in the last article, formal logic is based on three axioms, namely; Law of Identity, Law of non-contradiction and Law of Middle Exclusion.

It may be true that all the knowledge generated through formal logic (deductive reasoning[/deductive logic/rational knowledge) is true, still this fact does not prove truthfulness of its axioms. That is, no rational knowledge so far generated can assure that the three postulates developed by Aristotle as the foundation of formal logic is essentially true. However, if somebody can show that at least one of the three postulates is not essentially true, the popular statement that “deductive logic always gives rise to true conclusions” becomes an incorrect conception. May be deductive logic can generate true conclusions, but it could generate untrue conclusions as well. It does not guarantee to generate true conclusions alone. That means, if the first principles are not essentially true, the knowledge generated through Two Valued Logic can go wrong, meaning human inference or rational knowledge can go wrong. That is there is a possibility that rational knowledge is not accurate, as believed by rationalists. However, this is so only if there is a possibility at least one of the postulates of the first principles to go wrong.

However, in my penultimate post I said that rational knowledge could go wrong. If so, can I show at least that there is a possibility to one of the three postulates formulated by Aristotle as the foundation of  formal Logic could go wrong or contain lapses?  We will see to it in my next post.

  “There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your all philosophies, Horatio!”


      “The universe, not humans, must have the final say to declare what the world is really like.”


       “What name does this tree bear, O king?”

‘This tree is called a mango.’

‘Is there yet another mango beside this?’

‘There are many mango-trees.’

‘And are there yet other trees besides this mango and the other mangoes?’

‘There are many trees, sir; but those are trees that are not mangoes.’

‘And are there, beside the other mangoes and those trees which are not mangoes, yet other trees?’

‘There is this mango-tree, sir.’


Human knowledge seems to basically spring from two sources: sensory perception and inference. It seems that humans are endowed with these two competencies to explore the universe and understand it. However, are humans capable of acquiring complete understanding of the universe? In other words are these human competencies capable enough of providing the full knowledge of the universe to humans?

Before exploring into the answer of this question it is imperative one to know what the term knowledge means,  though we think it is an obvious term readily known by anybody. However, though the term seems to have been in use from the very beginning of the human race, it seems that no one was able to  give it a unanimously accepted definition up to now, making the answer to the question a very serious one.

Plato  defined knowledge as “justified true belief.” However, Bertrand Russel in his book “Theory of knowledge says, “”The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult of the three with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true.” This further shows that how difficult a question we are dealing with and the perplexity of this broadly accepted definition itself raises a doubt  of the capacity of humans to realize full knowledge.

There is no doubt that the first of the two tools of the humans to grasp the universe, “sensory perception”, is an inefficient tool, considering the capacity limitations/flaws of the five senses. For example human ear cannot sense the sound waves that are below 20 Hz and above 20,000Hz despite the fact they exist in and around and human eye is prone to ‘delusions’ such as mirage. However, philosophers doubt whether even what is grasped through five senses resemble the true nature of what is sensed. They say what we sense is just a set of information of what is sensed and there is no way to assure that  what we perceive through them is congruent to what is sensed. So, it is no doubt that the first tool of the humans is under the microscope for more lapses regarding its capacity.

The second tool, inference, as used in human history by average humans is based on Two Valued Logic, beyond which it seems humans are incompetent of handling though it has already been proven that there are processes and phenomena that do not follow the flow of Two Valued Logic and exist outside its scope. Human inference relies on the unstated assumption that the phenomena and processes of the universe take place according to the law of (Middle Excluded) Two Valued Logic and knowledge in it is derived using the process of Deductive Logic, that is based on true premises and valid arguments. However, everybody knows that there are random events that do not follow the line of Two Valued arguments and hence inference is incapable of handling such events and the processes and phenomena involved with random events, hence cannot acquire the knowledge involved with them. Further, now even Philosophy of Science has accepted that there are non random events that are outside of the space of Two Valued Logic, and Modern Physicists now have identified physical phenomena that needs Four Valued Logic to explain and understand. Wave Particle Duality in Modern Physics was the eye opener for the scientists in this new line of logic. Now the epistemology talks of Multiple Valued Logic and Fuzzy Logic that cannot be handled and utilized with endowed competencies for grasping knowledge by humans. So, this is a clear proof of the deficiency of the second human tool gifted to him at his birth for the purported purpose.

There is no doubt that all the secular knowledge acquired by humans throughout the history of mankind is based on those two tools and on a large set of combinations of them, except for a little knowledge generated by Physicists in the last century on the basis of Four Valued Logic. However, even that little piece of knowledge was not generated through the ordinary competencies of average humans. The Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics, Leonard Susskind says that to understand Modern Physics, especially Quantum Mechanics, one has to re-wire his/her brain completely, that is why average people with their inbuilt fabric of wires think that Quantum Physics is weird. Their inbuilt competencies based on sensory perception and inference based on Two Valued Logic are insufficient to realize the realities in Quantum Mechanics which are not weird but an essential component of the fabric of universe and real.

Further, a sufficient number of examples can be cited from the organic universe to suggest that there are different knowledge acquiring tools that are used by different species. One of the most cited examples by me is that the way how a migratory bird acquire its knowledge to travel thousands of kilometers and go back to its starting point. This is an impossible task for an average human without the help of the modern technology, and even in that case no single human can remember all the information required for the task even if he wants to do so. But that bird with a brain weighing less than 50 grammes can acquire the required knowledge without effort and keep it deposited in its tiny brain to guide itself perfectly to achieve its intended goal.

All in all what all these suggest is that endowed human competencies are insufficient and  incapable to grasp the reality of the universe, and there are other tools capable of doing what those particular two tools of humans are incapable of. This fact invariably proposes that humankind needs to look for newer tools, if it wants to continue with its journey of satisfying curiosity and the effort to know the universe. Up to now we have identified the existence of a few such tools as mentioned above, however, who certainly knows in which part of the world or among which primary life specifies such tools are available? No one can deny the possibility that you would find such a tool under your very nose. Open-mindedness is the main precondition required and begged by the Epistemology and world of knowledge today.  Assertiveness to deny what we don’t know is not considered as a merit anymore. You have to keep your mind open and search even under your nose. There could be more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in all our philosophies.


In my view,  Paramartha Sathya is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Buddhism. For many Paramartha Sathya in Buddhism is equivalent to the ultimate truth. The term may have that particular meaning in some cases, but it should be noted that the term is used in a different meaning as well and this latter meaning is the most prominent in Buddhist doctrine. However, many Buddhists take the meaning of the term as the former one and end up with contradictions. We will draw our attention to one of the such important cases.

In order to substantiate “Anaththa/non-self” doctrine in Buddhism most frequently used example is a one that uses the concepts of Sammuthi Sathya and Paramartha Sathya. According to the popularly misunderstood concept of non-self, there is no person called “I”. They further extend the concept and go to say that there is nothing in this world. For them according to this argument there are no chairs, no tables, no buses, no trains, thee is nothing. This is total misunderstanding of non-self doctrine.  Buddha didn’t say that there is nothing called “I”. What he said was there is nothing important in what is called “I” and not to subjugate others thinking “I” is important than others and taking “I” as important is a barrier to understand reality.

In Buddhism everybody knows what “Sammuthi Sathya” means. Things as observed can be considered as “Sammuthi Sathyas”. For example the statement “It is a stone.”  is a Sammuthi Sathya.  But according to the  perspective of Paramartha Sathya, it is not a stone. Most people take Paramartha Sathya as Ultimate Truth and  and hence it is superior to Sammuthi Sathya, and hence between Paramartha Sathya and Sammuthi Sathya, Paramartha Sathya is always true over Sammuthi Sathya and hence in this case they say the statement “it is not a stone” is truer than “It is a stone” and conclude “stone is not a stone”, and there is no stone. Same way they tend to say there is nothing called “I” with this argument. But this contradiction takes place because of the misunderstood use of the Paramartha Sathya concept in this context.

In many Buddhist text books it is explained how the Paramartha Sathya is obtained from  Sammuthi Sathya. In Milinda Prashna, Venarable Nagasena asked the king Milinda when a cart is dissembled,  whether it is still the cart.

In his book “Chathurarya Sathyaya” (Four Noble Truths), venerable Rerukane Chandawimala elaborates these two kinds of truths and describes the way to arrive at the “Paramartha Sathya” from its corresponding “Sammuthi Sathya”.

“       Page 36     Sinhala“

It was said that “the Dharma of Four Noble Truths are a four components of Paramartha Dharmas. For the purpose of easy understanding of the Four Noble Truths which are of the nature of the Paramartha Dharmas, Paramartha Dharmas should be known first. Therefore paramartha dharmas are explained here.

There are a kind of entities in the world that are really non existent, but appeared and perceived so, due to their phenomena and the way they are arranged. These things that are really non existent are called Conventions (Sammuthis).The things really exists are called Paramarthas (absolutes).

If a firebrand is rotated in dark, a fire circle is seen. Other than the appearance of a fire loop is seen due to the speed of the firebrand, anybody would understand that there is no fire loop in there.  Morning, noon, night, day, month also are the results of the motion of the sun. Really there is no anything as morning or noon or night or day or a month. Other than it is taken as true, spoken as true due to the motion of the sun, anybody who looks at with some insight would understand much difficulty that there is nothing as such. Fire loop, morning, noon etc. seem to be existent, perceived to be existent due to the phenomena of other things. 

There a lot of things really non existent but appeared as existent. Pillar is one among them. Pillar is an object seems as tall. If it is differentiated we can see that there are metal and mortar.  If we place metal and mortar in two separate places, two heaps of metal and mortar can be seen. The pillar disappears. The reason for the disappearance of the pillar is that there is no a pillar other than metal and mortar.  If those metal and mortar are bring together to seen as tall, aging that pillar appears. If dissembled, disappears.

A house too is something certainly non existent but seems as existent due to the arrangement of some other objects. If the bricks, stones, timber and mortar are separated house disappears. This way, if there is something that disappears when separated and appears when assembled, all of those things are seen as existent due to the other objects but they are none existent in the real sense.  The living things that are considered as existent such as gods –  humans –  elephants –  horses – cattle and non living things such as beds – chairs – plates – cups – pots – clothes –  trees- boulders by the average individuals are also disappearing  things, just as the earlier mentioned pillar and the house, if they are separated and see.  Therefore it should be understood that none of these are absolutes.

The easiest method to determine whether something is ultimately existent or not, is to divide it and see. Each thing should be divided over and over again until it is further indivisible, until understood to the intelligence and find out the ultimatum.”

From the above examples it should be clear that  “Paramartha sathya” in this context does not represent the Ultimate Truth and it is only one another way of looking at things or one another perspective, and also that it is not superior to “Sammuthi Sathyas” and hence Paramartha Sathyas does not invalidate “Sammuthi Sathyas”. So, in one perspective (Sammuthi Sathya) we can say “It is a stone” and in another perspective (Paramartha Sathya) (when it is broken into atoms) we can say it is not a stone, however no perspective is wrong. The popular idea that Paramartha Sathya overrules/negates Sammuthi Sathya is a misconception. Therefore Buddhism does not say that there is nothing called “I”, but it is the perspective of Paramartha Sathya and the perspective of Sammuthi Sathya that there is “I” is also a true statement. What Buddhism emphasized was giving it an undue value, which leads to self love, which is a barrier to real understanding.

NOTE:- Though venarable Rerukane Chandawimala Thero explains how the Paramartha Sathyas are obtained from the relevant Sammuthi Sathyas, it is clear that the venarable thero too  has taken the view that Paramartha Sathyas as Ultimate Truths.